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 authority held that undelivered statutory notices prove breach of registered office requirements. The key takeaway is that prolonged defaults can attract the maximum penalty under company law.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose related party transactions violated statutory audit duties. The key takeaway is that auditors must strictly comply with AS-18 and SA-550 or face penalties under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of related party disclosures violated statutory audit obligations. The key takeaway is that auditors must ensure full compliance with AS-18 and SA-550.
The authority held that non-numbering of minutes violates Secretarial Standard-1. The key takeaway is that statutory minute-keeping requirements must be strictly followed.
A company was penalised for filing an incomplete and incorrect INC-22 for change of registered office. Startup status helped secure a reduced penalty under Section 446B.
Errors and omissions in the annual return were held to violate Section 92. Even timely filing does not cure defective disclosures, though penalties were reduced for a startup.
The adjudicating authority held that utilisation of application money before filing PAS-3 violates Section 42. Even procedural deviations in private placement can trigger substantial penalties.
Failure to attach the EGM notice and explanatory statement in statutory filings was held to violate Rule 13(d). The key takeaway is that procedural lapses attract penalties even where shareholder approval exists.
The regulator held that issuing securities through private placement without a registered valuer’s report violates Section 62(1)(c). A reduced penalty was imposed considering start-up status.
A company was penalised for long-term non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The order reiterates strict enforcement of Section 203 of the Companies Act.
