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...
The issue involved failure to appoint independent directors within the prescribed timeline. The authority held that delay constituted a violation, leading to penalties on the company and its officers.
ROC imposed significant penalties for failing to constitute mandatory committees on time. The ruling makes it clear that delayed compliance does not excuse violations. Companies must adhere strictly to corporate governance timelines under the Companies Act
ROC imposed penalties for delay in filing MGT-14 beyond 30 days. The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory filing timelines.
The ROC penalized the company for a substantial delay in filing board resolutions. It held that compliance deadlines under the Companies Act are strict and cannot be ignored.
ROC imposed penalties for delayed filing of Form MR-1 beyond the 60-day limit. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements for director appointments.
The ROC penalized the company for filing board resolutions after the 30-day limit. It held that statutory timelines under the Companies Act are mandatory and cannot be ignored.
The company relied on old resolutions for ongoing related party transactions. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, imposing penalties for non-compliance.
The company continued related party transactions based on old approvals. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
The issue involved non-compliance with approval requirements for related party transactions. The authority held that absence of Board resolution violates Section 188. The key takeaway is that proper approvals are mandatory for such transactions.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The authority imposed penalties for violation of Section 203. The takeaway is that eligible companies must appoint key managerial personnel without exception.
