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...
A company crossing the ₹300 crore turnover threshold was penalised for delayed appointment of a woman director. The ruling reiterates that late compliance does not erase liability under the Companies Act.
The Registrar held that not serving annual reports within the prescribed time violates statutory disclosure obligations. Informal or oral practices cannot replace mandatory compliance.
The ROC held that issuing offer letters and using funds before statutory filings amounts to a substantive violation of Section 42, attracting penalties under Section 42(10).
The ROC held that issuing offers and allotting shares in breach of Rule 14 amounts to substantive violations of Section 42, attracting penalties under Section 42(10).
The authority held that the requirement of four board meetings applies per financial year, not calendar year. Even a one-time shortfall attracts penalties under Section 450.
The adjudicating authority penalised delayed transfer of unspent CSR amounts beyond the statutory timeline. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of CSR fund transfer obligations.
The adjudicating authority held that filing the declaration of commencement beyond 180 days violates Section 10A. The key takeaway is that delayed INC-20A filings attract statutory penalties regardless of intent.
The adjudicating authority penalised prolonged non-filing of Form MGT-14 despite claims of inadvertence. The key takeaway is that statutory timelines for board resolutions are mandatory, and excessive delays invite maximum penalties.
The Regional Director dismissed an appeal under Section 454 after finding procedural non-compliance, directing further action under Section 454(8) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar imposed penalties after finding a nearly six-year delay in appointing a mandatory whole-time Company Secretary once capital thresholds were crossed.
