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 adjudication confirms that non-appointment of a secretarial auditor is a serious compliance breach. COVID-related explanations did not absolve liability under company law.
Penalties were imposed after it was found that share subscription funds were used without valid allotment. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with private placement rules.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to mention CIN and contact details on official letterheads. The key takeaway is that statutory disclosures are mandatory regardless of public data availability.
The order reiterates that disclosure of CIN and contact details on official publications is compulsory and non-negotiable under company law.
The authority held that omission of CIN, email, and contact number on official documents violates section 12(3)(c). Even technical disclosure lapses attract penalties under section 12(8).
ROC held that failure to number pages in statutory minutes books violates Section 118. Even clerical lapses can invite penalties on both the company and its directors.
The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
The authority held that not consecutively numbering minutes books violates section 118(1) of the Companies Act. Even procedural lapses in corporate records can lead to fixed penalties on both the company and directors.
ROC held that non-appointment of a small shareholders’ director violates Section 151. The company and its directors were penalised at the statutory maximum under Section 172 for prolonged default.
The order reinforces that persistent non-filing of financial statements invites severe monetary consequences for both companies and directors.
