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 authority penalized the company and directors for non-functional registered office. The case highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 12.
The ROC penalized the company and its officer for filing incorrect AGM details in a statutory return. It held that accuracy of e-forms is mandatory and errors attract penalty despite later correction.
The ROC penalized the company and its directors for not filing financial statements within the prescribed timeline. It held that non-compliance with mandatory filing obligations attracts strict penalties.
A company was penalized for filing incorrect details in MGT-7 despite claiming a clerical mistake. The ruling clarifies that errors in statutory filings attract penalties even if later corrected.
ROC imposed a ₹10,000 penalty for incorrect AOC-4 XBRL filing due to errors in attachments and certification. The ruling reinforces strict liability for accuracy in MCA e-forms.
The authority penalized the Managing Director for incorrectly reporting the AGM date in MGT-7. It held that even clerical errors violate Rule 8(3), attracting Section 450 where no specific penalty exists.
ROC imposed heavy penalty for failing to appoint a Company Secretary within six months. The ruling stresses strict adherence to Section 203 timelines.
The authority penalized the company for failing to hold the required fourth Board Meeting. It clarified that absence of a specific penalty provision attracts Section 450 as a residual penalty.
The adjudicating authority penalized a company for not maintaining the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation. The violation continued for over 700 days before being rectified.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to file the board resolution within the prescribed 30-day period violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized.
