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 held that filing AOC-4 with incorrect company status details constitutes a violation of Rule 8(3). Rectification through GNL-1 does not eliminate liability, and penalties were imposed under Section 450.
Filing incorrect AGM date and due date in Form AOC-4 triggered adjudication proceedings under Section 454. The authority emphasized that MCA filings are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Responsibility for accuracy rests with the authorised signatory, who was held personally liable.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a Whole-time Director appointment was made effective before passing the Board resolution. The five-day contravention triggered action under Section 450.
The Registrar held that appointing a CFO with retrospective effect without a prior Board resolution violates Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013. Penalty was imposed under Section 450 as no specific punishment is prescribed for the default.
The authority found that approving financial statements before obtaining the Secretarial Audit Report contravened statutory requirements. A monetary penalty was imposed with compliance directions.
Failure to properly maintain Minutes Books under Section 118 led to adjudication by ROC. The company and its directors were fined for breaching Secretarial Standard-1.
The company failed to meet the statutory quorum of 30 members at AGMs, attracting penalty under Section 450. Directors were also fined ₹50,000 each for non-compliance.
The Registrar held that failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements violated Section 117(1) read with Section 179(3)(g). Penalty was imposed under Section 117(2) on both the company and its officers in default.
The Registrar of Companies levied maximum penalties under Section 12(8) after official letters were returned undelivered. Non-response to the show cause notice led to adjudication under Section 454.
The ROC Bangalore held that obtaining and retaining a second DIN in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act attracts penalty under Section 159. Despite the error being inadvertent and later rectified, the prolonged default of 3075 days resulted in a reduced but substantial penalty.
