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...
The authority ruled that absence of a loan does not waive compliance obligations. Failure to intimate satisfaction of charge attracted mandatory penalties.
Regulatory authorities held that claiming compliance with accounting standards without actual adherence or explanation violates Section 134. Companies and directors can face fixed penalties even without mala fide intent.
The adjudicating authority held that delayed appointment of a woman director constitutes a continuing default warranting financial penalties.
The ROC held that failure to appoint a woman director within the prescribed period violates section 149(1). Monetary penalties were imposed despite later rectification of the default.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The key takeaway is that delayed filings under section 454 are not maintainable.
Falcon Marine Exports Limited and officers were penalized for failing to disclose CSR policy, committee composition, and under-spending reasons in the Board Report.
ROC Delhi imposes penalties on a company and its directors for starting business before filing statutory declaration in INC-20A, highlighting compliance under Section 10A of Companies Act.
ROC Cuttack imposes penalties on a company and certain directors for failing to appoint a whole-time Company Secretary under Section 203(1)(ii), with exemptions for independent directors.
ROC Cuttack imposes ₹50,000 penalty on company officer for failing to file MGT-14 and Board Resolution approving financial statements under Section 117(2).
The ROC penalised the company and its directors for failing to file financial statements on time. The order reinforces that prolonged non-compliance under Section 137 attracts maximum penalties.
