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 examines prolonged delay in filing mandatory board resolutions approving accounts. It underscores that late compliance, even if rectified later, can attract maximum penalties under the residuary provision.
Failure to disclose occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 12(2). Rejection of a statutory form was ruled insufficient to escape penalty under section 450.
The regulator held that failure to furnish full allottee particulars violates Rule 14(6). Rejection of NDH-4 led to adjudication and penalties under section 450.
The regulator held that non-spending of CSR amounts and failure to transfer unspent funds within timelines violates section 135. Subsequent voluntary payment does not absolve past defaults.
The regulator held that failure to disclose mandatory particulars of allottees violates Rule 12(2) of the Prospectus and Allotment Rules. Even where rectification is promised, the default attracts penalty under section 450.
The regulator held that failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within statutory timelines violates sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment does not erase the default, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
Failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within timelines was held to violate sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment did not absolve liability, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
Failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 14(6). The ROC imposed penalties under section 450, underscoring strict disclosure requirements.
Non-filing of MGT-15 for two financial years was held to violate section 121. Officers were penalised despite the company being under liquidation.
ROC Chennai held that listed companies must appoint an internal auditor under Section 138. Non-compliance over multiple years resulted in penalties on directors.
