Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in ...
Company Law : The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period...
ROC held that failure to file Form MGT-6 within 30 days after receiving beneficial ownership declarations violates Section 89(6), attracting maximum penalties on the company and its director.
ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for 1,592 days of continuing default after a second DIN was obtained contrary to statutory provisions.
The ROC Bangalore imposed penalty under Sections 155 and 159 of the Companies Act after a director inadvertently obtained a second DIN. The default continued for 807 days before rectification.
ROC Bangalore imposed a penalty for 907 days of continuing default due to acquisition of a second DIN, holding it contravened Section 155.
The ROC Gwalior penalized a company for undertaking integrated poultry farming without altering its main object clause. Though later rectified, the violation of Sections 13 and 10 attracted penalty under Section 450.
ROC Ahmedabad imposed penalties after finding prolonged non-compliance with mandatory Independent Director requirements. The ruling underscores that delay in board composition compliance attracts adjudication under Section 454.
The ROC Mumbai imposed a ₹10,000 penalty under Section 450 after an incorrect AGM date was mentioned in Form AOC-4. The order clarifies that authorized signatories are liable for inaccuracies in digitally signed e-forms, even if errors are inadvertent.
A mismatch in paid-up capital disclosure in the annual return led to penalty proceedings under Section 454. The decision emphasizes that compliance failures in MCA filings, even if unintentional, invite statutory penalties.
A company was penalized for incorrectly selecting its OPC/Small Company status in Form AOC-4. The adjudicating authority clarified that MCA records are statutory public documents and inaccuracies attract liability despite claims of clerical error. Rectification does not nullify the offence.
ROC Pune imposed a penalty after a typographical error led to incorrect AGM details in Form MGT-7A. Although the AGM was duly held, incorrect filing attracted liability under Section 450. The director was fined ₹5,000 considering the company’s small status.
