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...
ROC Delhi held that delay in issuing share certificates to subscribers violated Section 56(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The company and its officers were penalised despite subsequently rectifying the default.
ROC Pune held that possession of more than one Director Identification Number constitutes a violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the absence of mala fide intent, penalty under Section 159 was imposed for the default.
ROC held that circulating the private placement offer letter before filing Form MGT-14 violated Section 42(3) and Rule 14(8). The case underscores the importance of completing prerequisite filings before initiating private placement offers.
The ROC Haryana held that failure to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a special resolution for issuance of CCDs constitutes a violation under Section 117(2). Companies must adhere to statutory timelines even when the default is subsequently rectified.
ROC Haryana held that mentioning an incorrect purpose in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. However, the penalty was reduced due to the company’s Small Company and Start-up status.
Although the show cause notice referred to the maximum penalty applicable for continuing contraventions, the adjudicating officer treated the lapse as a one-time offence. This resulted in a lower penalty under the Companies Act framework.
The ROC Haryana held that incorrectly stating the purpose of filing in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. Companies must ensure accuracy in MCA filings, as inadvertent mistakes can still result in penalties.
ROC held that omission of prescribed disclosures in the explanatory statement for a CCD issuance violated Section 62(1)(c) and Rule 13(2)(d). The company and its officers were penalized under Section 450 after admitting the default.
ROC Kolkata held that filing Form AOC-4 XBRL with an incorrect AGM date amounted to a contravention of Rule 8(3). The order clarifies that certifying signatories are responsible for the accuracy of statutory e-forms and attachments.
ROC Kolkata held that mentioning an incorrect AGM due date in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite admitting the mistake as inadvertent.
