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...
Naturedge Beverages issued a private placement offer before filing the Board resolution, resulting in penalties totaling ₹4,00,000 for the company and directors.
This order highlights penalties for failing to keep private placement application money in a separate bank account. It clarifies that both the company and directors are collectively liable under Section 42(10).
ROC Mumbai penalizes a company and its directors ₹1,00,000 each for failing to maintain a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Justo Realfintech Limited and its directors fined for failing to keep application money in a separate bank account under Section 42(6) of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai penalizes Pan Gulf Technologies and its MD for failing to attach the annual CSR report with the Board Report for FY 2022-23 under Section 134(3)(o).
The company voluntarily disclosed non-compliance with private placement fund rules, but penalties were still imposed. The judgment shows that proactive disclosure does not eliminate liability under Section 42(10) of the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalties on a company and its officer for not including the Annual CSR Report in the Board Report for FY 2021-22. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with Section 134(3)(o).
A delay of nearly eight years in meeting independent director and Audit Committee requirements resulted in fines totaling ₹6 lakh. The judgment reinforces the personal liability of officers for ongoing statutory defaults.
ROC Gwalior imposed penalties on a company and officers for using funds from a preferential issue before filing Form PAS-3. The ruling underscores compliance with Section 42(4) of the Companies Act.
ROC Ahmedabad levied penalties on a company and its Managing Director for delayed compliance with Section 149(4) and Section 172. The ruling emphasizes timely appointment of independent directors.
