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 Chennai held that non-filing of the secretarial audit report violates Section 204. Directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance across multiple years.
ROC Chennai held that failure to include key disclosures in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. Directors were penalised for statutory non-compliance.
ROC Chennai held that omission of allottee occupation in the return of allotment violates Rule 12(2). The lapse attracted penalty under the residual provision of Section 450.
Non-furnishing of full allottee information resulted in rejection of statutory filings and imposition of penalty. The ruling reinforces strict disclosure norms for allotments.
ROC Chennai held that delayed filing of Board resolutions approving financial statements violates Section 117. The company and directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance.
The registrar imposed the maximum penalty for delayed MSME Form I filings. Even belated compliance did not prevent monetary penalties.
Repeated delays in filing MSME returns resulted in penalties reaching the statutory cap. The decision highlights strict enforcement of MSME disclosure timelines and accountability of management.
Delays running into several months in filing MSME-1 resulted in penalties capped at ₹3 lakh. The ruling underscores that extended non-compliance will invite the highest statutory consequences.
MSME-1 filings delayed by over two years attracted the highest statutory penalties. The ruling signals strict enforcement where non-compliance is prolonged and repeated.
The regulator examined failure to hold the minimum number of Board meetings in a calendar year. It held that missing even one required meeting violates statutory governance norms and attracts penalty.
