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...
Registrar of Companies, Delhi, imposed penalties on a company and its directors for not maintaining serially numbered board meeting minutes for FY 2014–15, reaffirming that even clerical lapses can attract fines under Section 118(11).
ROC Mumbai levied a ₹25,000 penalty for failure to attach proof of identity and address of a newly appointed director in Form DIR-12, violating Section 152(5) read with Rule 8. The lapse was treated as an inadvertent but punishable compliance error.
Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, penalized a private company and its two directors ₹5,000 each for inaccurately stating the number of board meetings in the FY 2020–21 annual return, violating Section 92(1)(f) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties for failing to consecutively number minutes books of board and general meetings for FY 2014–15 to 2016–17, violating Section 118(11) of the Companies Act. The order underscores that accurate and sequential recordkeeping is a legal mandate.
ROC Chhattisgarh imposed ₹946,500 in penalties on Navbharat Defence Systems and four directors u/s 137(3) for failure to file Financial Statements for FY 2023-24.
ROC Chhattisgarh waived the penalty for Navbharat Defence Systems’ delayed Annual Return u/s 92(4), noting the default was rectified within 30 days of the SCN under Section 454(3) proviso.
ROC Chhattisgarh waived the penalty under Section 137(3) for Maa Danteshwari Industries Pvt. Ltd. as the company rectified the delay in filing Financial Statements (AOC-4) within 30 days of the SCN.
ROC Chhattisgarh fines Bhilai Investments Ltd ₹2 lakh and directors ₹50,000 each for delayed filing of PAS-6 for Sep 2022 under Companies Act rules.
ROC Chhattisgarh imposed penalties totaling ₹6,06,000 on VSG Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for violating Section 92(5) by failing to file the Annual Return for FY 2023-24.
ROC Goa imposed a ₹6,00,000 penalty on Mega Structures Realestate Ltd. and its director for violating Section 197 by paying managerial remuneration over the prescribed limit without shareholder approval.
