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 Chennai imposed penalties after a company failed to disclose PAN of allottees in a private placement return. The ruling confirms that omissions under Rule 14(6) attract Section 450 penalties, even for voluntary reporting.
The company and officers were penalized for errors in PAS-3 e-form filing during loan-to-equity conversion, highlighting the importance of accurate procedural compliance under the Companies Act.
ROC Kolkata penalized company directors for exceeding the permissible gap between board meetings under Section 173(1) of the Companies Act, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
The ROC levied penalties after finding that mandatory company details were omitted from MGT-9 and financial statements. The order highlights that even inadvertent filing gaps attract liability under Section 12(8).
ROC imposed significant penalties for failure to file FY 2019–20 financial statements despite extended deadlines. The case highlights strict consequences for prolonged non-compliance under Section 137.
The ROC held that failure to attach FY 2017–18 financial statements could not be penalized due to post-default decriminalization. The case clarifies the impact of statutory amendments on past non-compliances.
ROC penalized the company and directors for conducting a board meeting 79 days late, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 173(1) timelines.
Authorities held that directors violated Section 184 by not filing Form MBP-1 for FY 2023-24. A penalty of ₹1 lakh each was imposed for the disclosure lapse.
MCA imposed penalties for delayed board meetings, citing a 427-day gap as non-compliance. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines appeal rights and consequences for non-payment.
ROC held that financial statements signed without prior Board approval violated Section 134(1), attracting penalties on the company and directors. The key takeaway is that Board authorization is mandatory before signing audited accounts.
