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...
The ROC Bangalore held that obtaining and retaining a second DIN in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act attracts penalty under Section 159. Despite the error being inadvertent and later rectified, the prolonged default of 3075 days resulted in a reduced but substantial penalty.
The ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for holding two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even though the second DIN was obtained inadvertently and later surrendered, the continuing default for 1227 days attracted adjudication and monetary penalty.
The authority held that failure to attach a valuation report with Form PAS-3 violates Rule 12(7) of the PAS Rules. In the absence of a specific penalty, the residuary provision under Section 450 was applied, resulting in maximum penalties.
Failure to attach a valuation report with Form PAS-3 was held to breach Rule 12(7). Since continuing penalties were already imposed earlier, only the minimum penalty was levied in this instance.
The order holds that delayed dematerialisation of securities violates Section 29(1A) and Rule 9A. The company and directors were penalised under the residuary provision for prolonged non-compliance.
Failure to file INC-20A within 180 days resulted in penalties on both the company and its directors. The order highlights strict enforcement of commencement of business provisions.
The authority held directors personally liable for a prolonged default in commencement compliance. The case highlights that continuing defaults can result in maximum statutory penalties.
The order holds that an additional director cannot continue beyond the statutory cut-off date without shareholder approval. Allowing delayed regularisation attracted penalties under Section 172.
Authorities imposed mandatory penalties after directors failed to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report, breaching statutory disclosure obligations.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the statutory register of members is a clear violation of Section 88. Such non-compliance attracts monetary penalties on both the company and its directors.
