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 ROC penalised a company and its officers for keeping a rights issue open beyond the 30-day statutory period. The order reinforces strict compliance with timelines under Section 62(1)(a)(i).
The adjudicating authority penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose allottees’ PAN in Form PAS-3. The order enforces compliance with Rule 14(6) and Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The order holds that the company commenced operations before filing the mandatory INC-20A form, constituting a 293-day delay. Penalties were imposed on the company and its officers under Section 10A(2).
The company and its officer were penalized for failing to transfer acquired assets into the company’s name, violating Section 187(4). Penalties were imposed for FY 2020-22.
The ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for failing to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3. Reduced penalties were applied considering the company’s small status, with rectification required within 90 days.
The company failed to comply with statutory charge registration requirements under the Companies Act, 2013, attracting financial penalties on officers in default.
ROC Delhi penalised the company and officers for submitting FY 2022-23 financials without the Company Secretary’s signature, highlighting Section 134 compliance requirements and corporate governance obligations.
ROC Chennai imposed reduced penalties after a company failed to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in a private placement return. The order holds the lapse a Rule 14(6) violation punishable under Section 450, with relief granted under Section 446B.
ROC Chennai imposed penalties after a company failed to disclose PAN of allottees in a private placement return. The ruling confirms that omissions under Rule 14(6) attract Section 450 penalties, even for voluntary reporting.
The company and officers were penalized for errors in PAS-3 e-form filing during loan-to-equity conversion, highlighting the importance of accurate procedural compliance under the Companies Act.
