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 Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return within the prescribed time under Section 92 of the Companies Act, directing them to rectify the default.
The ROC Patna imposed penalties on two directors for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act by possessing more than one Director Identification Number, directing rectification and payment within 90 days.
The ROC penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2020–21. Continued non-compliance with Section 92 triggered penalties under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority found that the company increased paid-up share capital but failed to timely file PAS-3. Penalties were imposed under the Companies Act for violating statutory filing requirements.
The ROC penalized a company and its directors after the gap between board meetings exceeded the statutory limit of 120 days. The violation attracted penalties under Section 173(1) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act.
The ROC penalised a director for obtaining a second Director Identification Number in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. The order highlights that holding multiple DINs attracts penalties even if the duplication was inadvertent.
The ROC penalised a company and its officers for violating the resident director requirement under Section 149(3) of the Companies Act. The ruling highlights strict enforcement where non-compliance continued for 2297 days.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors after the annual return for FY 2022–23 remained unfiled, holding it a violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors after the annual return for FY 2021–22 remained unfiled, holding it a violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties after a company circulated a private placement offer letter before filing the required board resolution with the Registrar, violating Rule 14(8) of the securities rules.
