Company Law : The article highlights how companies completed PAS-3 filings but failed to maintain critical Right Issue documentation such as off...
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 : MCA has cautioned stakeholders against phishing calls, WhatsApp messages, emails, fake websites, and ZIP attachments impersonating...
Company Law : ICSI has requested the MCA to grant compliance relaxations following technical disruptions caused by the Data Centre fire. The pro...
Company Law : The MCA has widened CSR eligibility by recognizing subscriptions to Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments as a valid CSR activity...
Company Law : ICSI recommended restoring public access to basic company master data without mandatory login requirements. The representation sta...
Company Law : The update addresses repetitive annual KYC filings for directors. It allows filing once every three years, significantly reducing ...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : The MCA has introduced temporary relief measures extending name reservation validity and e-form resubmission deadlines affected by...
Company Law : MCA has allowed companies to file Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 without additional fees until 31 July 2026 due to disruptions caused b...
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...
The adjudicating authority held that filing Form PAS-6 after the due date does not wipe out the period of default. Maximum penalties were imposed on the company and its directors for prolonged non-compliance.
ROC Bangalore found a violation of Section 12 after a statutory notice could not be served at the companys registered office. The company and its directors admitted the default and accepted the penalties.
Penalties were imposed not only on the company but also on its officers in default for delayed filing of the return of allotment. The ruling emphasizes directors’ responsibility in ensuring adherence to corporate compliance requirements.
ROC Bangalore held that converting loans into equity without obtaining prior approval under Section 62(3) violates the Companies Act. Such transactions must comply with the appropriate share issuance provisions.
The order arose from the allotment of shares against loans received from shareholders and directors without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Section 62(3). The ruling reiterates that post-facto adjustments cannot substitute mandatory corporate approvals.
The ROC Bangalore penalised a company and its directors after finding that the next Board Meeting was convened 87 days beyond the statutory limit under Section 173(1). The company had voluntarily admitted the default through a suo motu application.
ROC held that failure to file Form PAS-3 within 15 days of share allotment violated Section 42(8) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 61-day delay in compliance.
ROC held that starting business operations before filing the mandatory declaration under Section 10A violated the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 179-day delay in compliance.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its officers for three separate compliance failures linked to a private placement of shares. The order highlights that errors in disclosures, e-forms, and attachments can attract penalties under Section 450.
ROC Cuttack held that responsibility for inaccurate information in e-forms rests with the authorised signatory and certifying professional under Rule 8(3). The company itself escaped penalty in the circumstances of the case.
