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...
Officers of the company were adjudicated for non-submission of Form AOC-4, emphasizing personal accountability under Section 137(3) and the Companies Act’s strict compliance requirements.
ROC Vijayawada penalizes THREE SEASONS EXIM and directors ₹3.5 Lakhs under Section 450 for failing to send EGM notice to a director and improper minute-keeping.
Three Seasons Exim Ltd. and its directors were penalized for not serving an EGM notice to a member and failing to maintain proper minutes. ROC Vijayawada highlighted strict compliance with Sections 101(3) and 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Vijayawada imposed a Rs. 75,000 penalty on three directors of Three Seasons Exim Ltd. for failing to issue the mandatory 7-day notice for two 2017 board meetings.
ROC Delhi held that unscored or uninitialed blank pages in minutes constitute non-compliance under Section 118(11). A ₹25,000 penalty was levied on the company and ₹5,000 each on defaulting directors.
ROC Delhi penalized a company and its directors for failing to properly bind board meeting minutes for FY 2017–18, holding it a violation of Section 118(11) read with Secretarial Standards SS-1 and SS-2.
ROC Pune imposed penalties on WORLDDEVCORP and three directors under Section 118(11) for not maintaining Board Minutes in the prescribed book and without date of entry.
Rosmerta Autotech Ltd. and its directors were penalized for maintaining board minutes without serial numbers for FY 2017-18. ROC emphasized strict compliance with Section 118(11) and Secretarial Standards SS-1 & SS-2.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties on ROSMERTA AUTOTECH and two directors under Section 118(11) of the Companies Act for failing to maintain serially numbered Board Minutes during FY 2016-17.
Rosmerta Autotech Ltd. and its directors were penalized for maintaining board minutes without serial numbers for FY 2015-16. ROC emphasized compliance with Section 118(11) and Secretarial Standards SS-1 & SS-2.
