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 Chennai ruled that boards must explain every audit qualification or adverse remark. Non-compliance resulted in penalties under the Companies Act.
ROC Chennai held that failure to disclose ICC compliance in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. The company and defaulting directors were penalised accordingly.
The registrar penalised a company for failing to fill a woman director vacancy within the statutory timeline. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with board composition norms.
The registrar penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a director’s regularisation in the annual return. The key takeaway is that even clerical omissions attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The registrar imposed penalties for a 212-day delay in filing Form MGT-14. Subsequent compliance did not absolve liability under Section 117(2).
The order deals with failure to submit complete allottee particulars in statutory filings. It reinforces that incomplete disclosures under allotment rules attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The issue involved failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalties under Section 450.
The order examines failure to disclose mandatory allottee details in statutory filings. It confirms that such omissions attract penalty under the residuary provision of the Companies Act.
The issue concerned failure to furnish complete allottee details as required under Rule 14(6). The authority held the lapse attracted penalty under Section 450, reinforcing strict compliance in securities allotment filings.
Incomplete disclosure in the return of allotment was found non-compliant. The company was directed to rectify defaults and pay penalties within the prescribed time.
