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 : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
Non-maintenance of statutory registers triggered adjudication under company law. Officers in default were held personally liable despite liquidation.
The adjudicating authority held that non-appointment of an internal auditor despite crossing the statutory turnover threshold violated company law. Directors were personally penalised, reinforcing strict compliance with audit requirements.
The adjudicating authority held directors liable for non-filing of Form MGT-8 for an earlier financial year. Liquidation of the company did not shield officers from personal penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose deposits accepted from related parties violated mandatory Board report norms. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of deposit disclosure requirements under company law.
Failure to give proper prominence to proxy-related rights in AGM notices led to adjudication. A monetary penalty was imposed on the director under the Companies Act.
The authority held that although the annual return was filed 266 days late, no penalty could be imposed as the default was rectified before adjudication notice. The ruling underscores relief under Section 454(3) for cured defaults.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of DIN details in statutory filings violates disclosure norms. A monetary penalty was imposed on the defaulting director under the Companies Act.
Failure to appoint a whole-time Company Secretary within the statutory timeline led to substantial penalties on the company and its directors. The order reinforces strict adherence to Section 203 compliance requirements.
An incorrect statutory filing led to misclassification of the company on the MCA portal. The ruling clarifies that directors remain liable for accuracy of e-forms even when errors are voluntarily reported.
Incorrect disclosure of promoter and public shareholding in a statutory return was penalised under the Companies Act. The key takeaway is that even clerical errors in MCA filings can trigger liability.
