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 imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that material investment disclosures required under Schedule III of the Companies Act were omitted from financial statements. The authority held that the auditor failed to report the company’s statutory non-compliance under Section 143.
ROC Kolkata penalised a private company and its directors for non-filing of annual returns under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The adjudicating authority held that continued default in statutory filings attracted monetary penalties under Section 92(5).
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for delayed transfer of unspent CSR funds to the Swachh Bharat Kosh. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 135(7) compliance timelines under the Companies Act.
ROC Cuttack imposed penalties for failure to print mandatory contact information on company letterheads under Section 12(3)(c). The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory disclosure requirements in official documents.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act after finding that official letterheads omitted mandatory details such as telephone number, email, and website address.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for not appointing a whole-time Chief Financial Officer despite paid-up capital exceeding the statutory threshold under the Companies Act.
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its Managing Director for omitting disclosure regarding compliance with Secretarial Standards in the Board Report. The authority held that the omission violated Section 118(10) read with Section 134(5)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors after finding that board meeting minute books were not maintained in accordance with Secretarial Standards. The authority held that absence of serial numbering in minute books violated Section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Chennai held that an Additional Director who was not regularised at the AGM could not be treated as an officer in default during the violation period. The ruling highlights the importance of director status while fixing liability under the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties under Section 450 after a company failed to appoint an internal auditor despite crossing prescribed financial limits. The order held that absence of professional guidnce is not a valid ground for waiver of penalty.
