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...
Adjudication order detailing the penalty imposed on Vocera Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and its officers for a delay in holding a board meeting.
A company and its directors face penalties from ROC Ahmedabad for failing to file a mandatory board resolution under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Ahmedabad imposes penalties on Harsh Gathani Enterprise Private Limited and two officers for failing to maintain proper minute books under Section 118(11) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) designates Special Courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh for the speedy trial of offenses under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, as per a June 18, 2025 notification.
Regional Director sets aside penalty on Mr. Gangadharappa Munidra Kumar, former director of Eaglesight Media, for Section 12(1) Companies Act violation, citing his 2014 resignation.
MCA relaxes additional fees for 13 e-forms due to MCA21 V3 migration. Forms due till July 31 can be filed by August 15, 2025, without extra charges.
Regional Director confirms Rs. 1.5 Lakh penalty on CA Vijay Bora for three violations of Companies Act Section 143, upheld in appeal against ROC West Bengal order.
An order from the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad imposes a penalty on two directors for failing to disclose their interests as required by Section 184 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC has issued an order against Charles River Laboratories India Private Limited for failing to hold a board meeting on time, a violation of Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Regional Director clarified that Section 446B, which offers relief to One Person Companies or Small Companies, is applicable to the company itself and not to its auditor. Therefore, the auditor could not use this defense to reduce the penalty.
