Company Law : The transition to the new MCA portal disrupted statutory filings due to login, DSC, and payment failures. The key takeaway is that...
Company Law : MCA V3 launches revised MGT-7 for FY 2024-25. PAN, Folio, and validation sheet are mandatory for shareholders; external Excel use ...
Company Law : MCA has updated annual forms MGT-7A and AOC-4 with new requirements for business activity codes, registered office details and sha...
Company Law : A summary of the new MGT-7 annual return form on the MCA's V3 portal, detailing the shift to a web-based system, new disclosure re...
Company Law : Erroneous MCA data classifying Independent Directors as 'Directors' leads to legal issues, prompting a systemic correction to prot...
Company Law : The update addresses repetitive annual KYC filings for directors. It allows filing once every three years, significantly reducing ...
Company Law : The upgraded MCA21 V3 portal processed over 3.84 crore filings in five years and resolved 98% of helpdesk grievances in FY 2025-26...
Company Law : The government has approved new regional and company registries to streamline administration and improve access. The move aims to ...
Corporate Law : SFIO now issues digitally generated Summons/Notices with QR codes and DINs, allowing recipients to verify authenticity online and ...
Company Law : ICSI reports numerous technical issues—including OTP failures, data errors, and DSC problems—on the MCA-21 V3 portal and reque...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Company Law : A director was penalized for holding two DINs in violation of statutory provisions. The key takeaway is that even inadvertent non-...
Company Law : The company failed to conduct the required number of board meetings and exceeded statutory time gaps. The key takeaway is that str...
Company Law : Filing incorrect details in statutory forms attracts penalties even if later corrected. The key takeaway is that rectification doe...
Company Law : The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authorit...
Company Law : The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, hold...
The issue involved duplication of DIN due to ignorance during incorporation. The authority imposed penalty despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
Holding more than one DIN violates statutory provisions regardless of intent. The adjudicating authority imposed maximum penalty despite claim of inadvertent error.
The issue involved failure to file annual returns within the prescribed time. The authority imposed penalties and emphasized strict compliance with statutory filing obligations.
The issue involved holding two DINs in violation of law. The authority imposed penalty considering the extended duration of default despite eventual rectification.
The case involved holding two DINs for 1462 days in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering mitigating circumstances.
The director voluntarily disclosed the violation and surrendered the duplicate DIN. The authority reduced the penalty to 25% of the maximum due to non-repetitive default. This highlights the benefit of proactive compliance.
Even though the duplicate DIN was surrendered, the violation period attracted penalty. The ruling clarifies that rectification does not eliminate liability for past default. Timely compliance is essential.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of law. The authority granted relief by imposing only 25% of the maximum penalty due to absence of malafide intent.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering the unintentional nature of the default.
The case involved delayed approval for appointing a non-resident whole-time director. Authorities held that the 90-day period must be calculated from the date of appointment, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
