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 Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form A...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the ...
Company Law : The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent f...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companie...
Company Law : The ROC rejected the company’s defense that temporary reconstruction and business disputes justified the absence of staff and si...
The ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its Managing Director for omitting the mandatory web link of the annual return in the Board Report for FY 2019-20. The ruling highlights that even seemingly minor disclosure lapses under Section 92(3) can attract penalties under Section 450.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its Managing Director for failing to include mandatory disclosures in the Board Report for FY 2019-20. The ruling highlights that omissions relating to annual return details, cost records, and secretarial standards can attract penalties under Section 134(8).
ROC Goa imposed penalties after finding violations of AS-09 and AS-15 reflected in the auditor’s report for FY 2021-22. The order held that failure to ensure proper compliance in the Directors’ Responsibility Statement attracted independent liability under Section 134(5A).
ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its officers for failing to fill vacancies of independent directors within the statutory timeline. The order reinforces strict compliance requirements under Section 149(4) of the Companies Act.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for failing to disclose PAN and e-mail IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Rule 14(6) of the Companies Act framework.
ROC Chennai penalised a Nidhi company and its directors for incomplete allottee disclosures in Form PAS-3. The order clarifies that absence of PAN or e-mail details cannot excuse statutory non-compliance.
ROC Chennai penalised a Nidhi company and its directors for filing incomplete allottee details in Form PAS-3. The ruling clarifies that occupation details of allottees are mandatory under Rule 12(2) of the Companies Rules, 2014.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for filing Form MGT-7 more than 500 days late under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling confirms that annual return filing delays attract substantial penalties despite operational or legal difficulties.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for delayed filing of Form MGT-14 relating to approval of financial statements and Board’s Report. The ruling reiterates that board resolutions under Section 179(3) must be filed within the prescribed statutory timeline.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for delayed filing of financial statements under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling confirms that prolonged litigation and staff shortage cannot excuse statutory MCA filing delays.
