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 adjudicating authority penalised a company for not spending mandatory CSR funds and failing to transfer unspent amounts on time. Subsequent rectification did not erase liability for the original default.
The ROC held that inability to produce statutory minutes amounts to a clear violation of Section 118. Historical loss of records due to flood does not absolve ongoing compliance obligations.
The ROC held that uploading incorrect data and attachments in a statutory return constitutes a completed contravention. Later correction requests cannot wipe out penalty liability.
The ROC held that inability to produce the Register of Members amounts to a clear violation of Section 88, attracting a mandatory penalty despite historical circumstances.
The authority held that non-maintenance of statutory minutes attracts a fixed penalty even if records were destroyed due to unforeseen events. Flood damage was treated as mitigation, not a defence to statutory liability.
Authorities held that failure to file Form MGT-14 for approving annual accounts violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The ruling reiterates that timely filing of board resolutions is mandatory.
Authorities held that non-filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The ruling reiterates that filing board resolutions is a mandatory statutory obligation.
The ROC held that filing an AOC-4 form with an incorrect AGM date amounts to a completed contravention. Subsequent correction requests do not erase penalty liability under the Companies Act.
The ROC held that selecting incorrect options in statutory filings amounts to a completed contravention. Later requests to mark the form defective do not remove penalty liability.
The order clarifies that filing an incorrect statutory e-form attracts penalties even if the mistake is later admitted and rectified. Administrative correction does not erase the original contravention under the Companies Act.
