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 Mumbai penalized a company and its directors for failing to maintain consecutively numbered pages in Board and General Meeting minutes books. The order highlights mandatory compliance with Secretarial Standard-1 under the Companies Act.
ROC Chandigarh penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of particulars relating to vacation of office of a disqualified director. The order highlights strict compliance obligations under Sections 170 and 172 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to appoint a Chief Financial Officer after crossing the prescribed paid-up capital threshold. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC held that attaching an incorrect balance sheet while filing Form AOC-4 amounts to non-compliance under Section 137(1). The company and its directors were penalized for defective filing of financial statements.
ROC Patna imposed penalties after a company failed to prove that Board Meetings were held as required under Section 173(1). Absence of minutes and non-filing of MGT-7 became key reasons for the adjudication action.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its managing director after physical verification revealed that the registered office was not functioning at the recorded address. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC imposed penalties after a company incorrectly mentioned the financial year period while filing Form AOC-4 on the MCA portal. The ruling highlights the importance of accuracy in statutory electronic filings.
ROC Haryana penalized a company and its officers for filing e-Form MR-2 beyond the prescribed 90-day period after appointing a Managing Director. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 196 and Rule 7(3) of the Companies Act framework.
ROC Uttar Pradesh penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2019-20 under Section 92(4). The ruling highlights strict consequences for non-filing of statutory annual returns under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Uttar Pradesh dropped penalty proceedings after confirming that Form MGT-14 had already been filed for approval of accounts. The ruling highlights that penalties under Section 117(2) cannot survive once compliance is verified.
