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 : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
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...
ROC Ahmedabad imposes penalties for delayed appointment of independent directors, noting 81 days of non-compliance and directing payment under Section 172.
ROC Ahmedabad imposes penalties for failure to include registered office details on company letterheads for multiple years, citing violation of Section 12(8).
The ROC Ahmedabad penalized the company and its director for failing to appoint independent directors and constitute an audit committee within the mandated timeline. The order outlines the default period, penalty amounts, and compliance requirements.
The ROC Ahmedabad levied penalties for failing to appoint a Company Secretary within the required timeframe after capital increase triggered Section 203 compliance. The order details the 408-day delay and the imposed penalty amounts.
ROC Delhi levied penalties for not preparing and keeping minutes and attendance registers for seven board meetings, stressing the mandatory record-keeping requirements under Section 118.
The order holds directors liable for not providing mandatory interest disclosures in initial board meetings. Penalties were levied under Section 184(4) for procedural non-compliance.
ROC Gwalior penalizes a company and directors for late filing of share allotment return and incorrect valuation report under Section 42(9) of the Companies Act.
The company and its officers were penalized ₹20,000 each for filing Form PAS-3 twenty days late, highlighting the importance of timely compliance under Section 39(4).
Tamilnadu Minerals Limited and its Company Secretary were penalized for holding only three board meetings instead of four during FY 2024-25, violating Section 173(1).
ROC Chennai penalizes a company and its directors for not appointing key managerial personnel, imposing fines up to ₹5 lakh per defaulting officer.
