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 adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose related party transactions violated statutory audit duties. The key takeaway is that auditors must strictly comply with AS-18 and SA-550 or face penalties under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of related party disclosures violated statutory audit obligations. The key takeaway is that auditors must ensure full compliance with AS-18 and SA-550.
The authority held that non-numbering of minutes violates Secretarial Standard-1. The key takeaway is that statutory minute-keeping requirements must be strictly followed.
A company was penalised for filing an incomplete and incorrect INC-22 for change of registered office. Startup status helped secure a reduced penalty under Section 446B.
Errors and omissions in the annual return were held to violate Section 92. Even timely filing does not cure defective disclosures, though penalties were reduced for a startup.
The adjudicating authority held that utilisation of application money before filing PAS-3 violates Section 42. Even procedural deviations in private placement can trigger substantial penalties.
Failure to attach the EGM notice and explanatory statement in statutory filings was held to violate Rule 13(d). The key takeaway is that procedural lapses attract penalties even where shareholder approval exists.
The regulator held that issuing securities through private placement without a registered valuer’s report violates Section 62(1)(c). A reduced penalty was imposed considering start-up status.
A company was penalised for long-term non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The order reiterates strict enforcement of Section 203 of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority penalised a company for not spending mandatory CSR funds and failing to transfer unspent amounts on time. Subsequent rectification did not erase liability for the original default.
