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 order holds that failure to disclose mandatory allottee particulars violates securities allotment rules. Rejection of a regulatory form does not bar imposition of penalty under the Companies Act.
Regulatory correspondence returned undelivered led to action under registered office compliance rules. The ruling underscores that companies must maintain a functional address to receive statutory communications.
The authority held that failure to disclose related party contracts and justifications in the Board’s Report violates statutory transparency norms. A personal monetary penalty was imposed on the responsible director.
Non-compliance with mandatory board composition norms led to heavy penalties. Both the company and the officer were held liable under company law.
The Registrar found that statutory notices and court decrees were returned undelivered, proving non-maintenance of the registered office. The key takeaway is that companies and directors face the maximum penalty for such defaults.
A delay of 13 days in filing Form MGT-15 attracted penalties on both the company and key managerial personnel. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of AGM compliance timelines.
The regulator examined a failure to disclose full allottee particulars in the return of allotment. It held that incomplete disclosures violate securities allotment rules and attract penalty under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that non-receipt of official correspondence proved a breach of the statutory duty to maintain a registered office. Penalties were imposed on the company and its directors under Section 12(8) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar held that failure to disclose the risk management policy in the Board’s Report violated statutory reporting obligations. The key takeaway is that directors remain personally liable even after company strike-off.
Non-maintenance of statutory registers triggered adjudication under company law. Officers in default were held personally liable despite liquidation.
