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 imposed the highest permissible penalty after finding prolonged failure to file AOC-4. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of Section 137(3) and personal accountability of directors.
The authority held that non-filing of financial statements under section 137 attracts strict penalties. Prolonged default justified imposition of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
The ruling reiterates that prolonged filing defaults invite monetary penalties on both the company and officers in default.
ROC held that failure to file financial statements for consecutive years violates Section 137, warranting statutory penalties on both the company and its directors.
An inspection under section 206(5) confirmed long-standing filing failures, resulting in statutory penalties on the company and officers in default.
The adjudicating authority held that exceeding the ₹100 crore borrowing threshold makes secretarial audit compulsory. Failure to appoint a Secretarial Auditor attracts fixed penalties under the Companies Act.
Description: A clerical mistake in the allotment date led to a violation of section 62(1)(a), attracting penalty under section 450 despite subsequent rectification.
The order clarifies that procedural violations in private placement cannot be excused merely because the company was a start-up. Strict compliance with Section 42 remains mandatory.
It was ruled that failure to file PAS-3 within 15 days attracts per-day penalties, reinforcing strict adherence to private placement disclosure timelines.
The appeal was dismissed as no documentary evidence of internal auditor appointment was produced. The key takeaway is that statutory claims must be backed by records.
