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 Kolkata penalized company directors for exceeding the permissible gap between board meetings under Section 173(1) of the Companies Act, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
The ROC levied penalties after finding that mandatory company details were omitted from MGT-9 and financial statements. The order highlights that even inadvertent filing gaps attract liability under Section 12(8).
ROC imposed significant penalties for failure to file FY 2019–20 financial statements despite extended deadlines. The case highlights strict consequences for prolonged non-compliance under Section 137.
The ROC held that failure to attach FY 2017–18 financial statements could not be penalized due to post-default decriminalization. The case clarifies the impact of statutory amendments on past non-compliances.
ROC penalized the company and directors for conducting a board meeting 79 days late, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 173(1) timelines.
Authorities held that directors violated Section 184 by not filing Form MBP-1 for FY 2023-24. A penalty of ₹1 lakh each was imposed for the disclosure lapse.
MCA imposed penalties for delayed board meetings, citing a 427-day gap as non-compliance. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines appeal rights and consequences for non-payment.
ROC held that financial statements signed without prior Board approval violated Section 134(1), attracting penalties on the company and directors. The key takeaway is that Board authorization is mandatory before signing audited accounts.
ROC Bengaluru imposed penalties for a 403-day delay in issuing share certificates, citing violation of Section 56. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines the appeal process.
The adjudicating authority held that failing to fill the company secretary vacancy for over three years violated Section 203(5). Full penalties were imposed as the company was not eligible for reduced relief.
