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 : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was treated as a violation of Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while r...
Company Law : Authorities held that omission of Directors’ Identification Numbers in financial statements violates statutory requirements unde...
Company Law : Authorities held that filing financial statements without directors’ signatures violates mandatory provisions under Section 134....
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
A massive delay in filing BEN-2 for significant beneficial ownership led to maximum penalties. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts strict penal consequences.
The ROC held that no penalty is leviable as the company filed its annual return within 30 days of the notice. The ruling highlights that timely compliance can nullify penal consequences under the Companies Act.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to follow mandatory secretarial standards in company meetings. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
The ROC penalized directors for not holding mandatory Board Meetings. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with governance requirements under the Companies Act.
ROC imposed penalties for not filing DIR-12 to record director resignation. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements for maintaining statutory records under the Companies Act.
The authority rejected reliance on indemnity agreements to avoid statutory liability. It held that directors remain accountable for compliance failures regardless of private arrangements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to ensure minutes were signed by the Chairman as required. It held that deviation from prescribed procedure violates statutory compliance norms.
Failure to accurately record board meeting details resulted in statutory violation. Authorities imposed penalties emphasizing strict compliance with minute-keeping provisions.
The authority held that financial statements adopted before audit are invalid under the Companies Act. It ruled that failure to file proper statements attracts penalty under Section 137.
