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 Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized under Section 12(8) despite claims of temporary closure and health-related disruptions.
The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent filing mistakes in digitally signed forms can lead to penalties under Section 450.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that even inadvertent allotment of duplicate DIN attracts penalty under Section 159.
The ROC rejected the company’s defense that temporary reconstruction and business disputes justified the absence of staff and signboards. It held that statutory obligations under Section 12 remain mandatory at all times.
The adjudication order clarifies that incomplete filing of statutory resolutions on the MCA portal constitutes non-compliance. The company failed to rectify the defect despite notices and hearing opportunities.
ROC Mumbai-II imposed a penalty on a director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 XBRL filed for FY 2023-24. The authority held that authorised signatories are responsible for accuracy of e-form contents under Rule 8(3).
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a related party loan transaction in the Board’s Report and Form AOC-4. The authority held that omission of the transaction violated Section 134(3)(h) of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty under Section 159 after a director was found holding two DINs simultaneously in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. The authority noted that the duplicate DIN was generated because of a system error during portal migration but still treated it as a continuing default.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalties on a listed company and its officers for failing to file Form MR-2 within the prescribed timeline for appointment of a non-resident Whole Time Director. The adjudicating authority held that the 878-day delay violated Rule 7(3) read with Sections 196 and 201 of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai penalized directors for treating special business as ordinary business in an AGM notice to avoid mandatory explanatory disclosures. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 102 of the Companies Act.
