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 Delhi imposed penalties after a company failed to form Audit and Nomination Committees despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The order held that statutory committee requirements under Sections 177 and 178 are mandatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a company incorrectly reported that consolidated financial statements were not applicable in its AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order held that inaccurate MCA filings attract liability even if the mistake is later admitted and rectified.
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for not appointing a woman director after turnover crossed ₹300 crore. The order clarifies that operational difficulties and delays in identifying candidates cannot excuse statutory non-compliance.
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties under Section 134(8) after finding that the company’s directors failed to provide comments on statutory auditor qualifications. The company and officers were held liable for non-compliance with Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
ROC Uttar Pradesh penalised the company and officers for failing to provide comments on auditor qualifications in the Board’s Report for FY 2019-20. The order held the company in violation of Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar of Companies found that the company remained without a whole-time Company Secretary from 2014 to 2020 in violation of mandatory legal requirements. Penalties were imposed on both the company and directors under Section 203(5).
The Registrar of Companies held that non-filing of financial statements by the due date constituted a contravention of Section 137(1) of the Companies Act. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and officers in default.
The Registrar emphasized that statutory e-forms are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Filing defective or inaccurate forms can therefore attract penalties under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450.
ROC Kolkata penalized a company for incorrectly declaring itself as non-subsidiary in AOC-4 due to human error. The ruling stresses that inaccurate MCA filings can trigger penalties even when mistakes are later corrected.
ROC Kolkata penalized a company for filing an annual return containing wrong shareholder information due to clerical error. The ruling highlights that inaccurate MCA filings can trigger penalties even when later corrected.
