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...
Gujarat Kidney and Super Speciality Limited penalized ₹12,80,000 by ROC Ahmedabad for a 256-day delay in filing the revised Return of Allotment (PAS-3) and related stamp duty issues.
ROC Ahmedabad adjudicated penalties on a company and its directors for minor record date and allotment errors in a rights issue. The ruling highlights that voluntary correction and good corporate governance can mitigate penalties.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs extends virtual AGMs and EGMs via VC/OAVM until further notice, but clarifies that statutory deadlines remain unchanged.
Virupaksha Organics and its directors are fined for a long-standing failure to constitute an Audit Committee. This ROC order outlines the penalties for the company’s non-compliance with the Companies Act.
Registrar of Companies levies penalties on directors for omitting contact details from Board Report letterhead, highlighting statutory duties under Section 12(3)(c) of Companies Act, 2013.
The Goa Registrar of Companies has fined Gazra Analytical Solutions Private Limited and its directors for not maintaining a functional registered office.
ROC Hyderabad has penalized Virupaksha Organics and its directors for failing to appoint two independent directors as required under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Hyderabad has penalized Virupaksha Organics and its directors for failing to constitute a Nomination and Remuneration Committee under the Companies Act, 2013.
Shree Krishna Impex Ventures is penalized by the Gwalior Registrar of Companies for an incomplete and unsigned Board Report, violating the Companies Act.
Officers of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, including the CFO and Company Secretary, faced penalties after board minutes were finalized 215 days late. The case clarifies officers’ accountability under Section 118(11) of the Companies Act, 2013.
