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 adjudication confirms that incorrect classification of promoter and public shareholding in statutory filings attracts penalties. Even inadvertent errors in Form MGT-7 trigger liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that non-disclosure of auditor-reported violations in the Directors’ Report breached Section 134(3)(f). The ruling underscores that transparency in statutory reporting is mandatory, not optional.
The adjudicating authority ruled that filing statutory e-forms with incorrect particulars constitutes a completed violation. Subsequent requests to mark forms defective do not erase penalty liability.
An incorrect AGM date disclosed in an annual return led to penal action. The ruling clarifies that accuracy in statutory disclosures is mandatory and strictly enforced.
The adjudicating authority held that non-disclosure of auditor-reported non-compliances violates statutory reporting duties. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and defaulting directors.
Failure to explain auditor-noted violations of Nidhi Rules resulted in penalties on the company and directors. The order reinforces strict disclosure duties under company law.
The order confirms that filing incorrect financial statements triggers penalties even if errors are later admitted and rectified. Post-filing administrative correction does not erase liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that failure to display a complete registered office address violated Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act. The case reinforces that even procedural lapses can attract the maximum statutory penalty if left unrectified.
The regulator held that partial disclosure in balance sheet notes is insufficient under section 134. Listed companies must make clear and complete related party disclosures.
The regulator held that Annual Reports are official publications mandatorily requiring CIN disclosure. Repeated non-compliance led to the maximum penalty on both the company and its officers.
