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 ROC Bangalore imposed penalty under Sections 155 and 159 of the Companies Act after a director inadvertently obtained a second DIN. The default continued for 807 days before rectification.
ROC Bangalore imposed a penalty for 907 days of continuing default due to acquisition of a second DIN, holding it contravened Section 155.
The ROC Gwalior penalized a company for undertaking integrated poultry farming without altering its main object clause. Though later rectified, the violation of Sections 13 and 10 attracted penalty under Section 450.
ROC Ahmedabad imposed penalties after finding prolonged non-compliance with mandatory Independent Director requirements. The ruling underscores that delay in board composition compliance attracts adjudication under Section 454.
The ROC Mumbai imposed a ₹10,000 penalty under Section 450 after an incorrect AGM date was mentioned in Form AOC-4. The order clarifies that authorized signatories are liable for inaccuracies in digitally signed e-forms, even if errors are inadvertent.
A mismatch in paid-up capital disclosure in the annual return led to penalty proceedings under Section 454. The decision emphasizes that compliance failures in MCA filings, even if unintentional, invite statutory penalties.
A company was penalized for incorrectly selecting its OPC/Small Company status in Form AOC-4. The adjudicating authority clarified that MCA records are statutory public documents and inaccuracies attract liability despite claims of clerical error. Rectification does not nullify the offence.
ROC Pune imposed a penalty after a typographical error led to incorrect AGM details in Form MGT-7A. Although the AGM was duly held, incorrect filing attracted liability under Section 450. The director was fined ₹5,000 considering the company’s small status.
The adjudicating officer found that holding multiple DINs contravened Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the director’s claim of inadvertence and voluntary surrender, a reduced penalty of 50% of the maximum was levied.
The ROC Chhattisgarh held that repeated return of official letters marked Not Known proved non-compliance with Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalised under Section 12(8) for failing to maintain a functional registered office.
