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 order holds that non-filing of MGT-14 for approving financial statements violates Sections 117 and 179, attracting penalty under Section 450 with monetary fines on the company and directors.
The order addresses failure to disclose occupation details of allottees in statutory filings. The authority held this omission to be a violation of securities allotment rules, attracting penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue concerned late filing of Form MGT-14 for a special resolution. The authority held the delay violated Section 117(2) and imposed penalties on the company and its officers.
The issue was failure to provide full allottee particulars in PAS-3. The key takeaway is that missing PAN or email details can trigger penalties under Section 450.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of annual accounts. The authority held that such delay attracts residuary penalty despite subsequent compliance.
This matter examined consequences of not filing a mandatory Board Resolution. The authority held that later compliance does not erase liability for earlier default.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation violates Section 152(6)(a). A monetary penalty was imposed on the officer in default despite suo motu disclosure.
The case addressed failure to appoint a woman director within the statutory timeline. The authority held the company and its officers liable under the residuary penalty provision.
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
