SPN Legal’s Post

The case of RITESH JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, as adjudicated by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in Gujarat, serves as a notable example of the consequences of non-compliance. The company, in violation of Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, failed to mention its CIN on the letterhead, a mandatory stipulation. Despite receiving adjudication notices and opportunities for hearings, the company persisted in its non-compliance stance. The adjudicating authority, recognizing the severity of the violation, imposed penalties on the company and its officers under Section 454 of the Companies Act. This enforcement action reflects the gravity of the offense and the imperative of adhering to statutory obligations. The penalties, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- on the company and Rs. 1,00,000/- each on two directors, underscore the importance of compliance with regulatory mandates. The enforcement process highlighted the responsibility of directors and key managerial personnel to ensure compliance, with ignorance of the law deemed unacceptable. The penalties imposed serve as a deterrent against future non-compliance instances, emphasizing the need for companies to meticulously adhere to statutory requirements, including the mention of CIN on official documents. Furthermore, the appointment of an Adjudication Authority, as empowered by the Companies Act, underscores the government's commitment to enforcing accountability and maintaining transparency in #corporategovernance. The authority's role in adjudicating penalties underscores the seriousness with which regulatory compliance is viewed. This enforcement action by the MCA reinforces the significance of regulatory compliance in corporate governance. Companies are reminded of their obligation to diligently adhere to statutory requirements to avoid legal repercussions. The adjudication process serves as a mechanism to ensure accountability and uphold the integrity of corporate operations. #mca #cin #startup #incubator #corporateidentificationnumber #enterpreneur #compliance #cs #companysecretary #paralegalconsultant #noncompliance #startupbusiness #businessconsultant #companyincorporation #drafting #companylaw #regultoryaffairs

MCA Imposes Rs.300,000 Penalty for Companies’ Failure to Mention CIN on Letterhead and Company Documents! 😲 - The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has imposed penalties on companies for not including their Corporate Identification Number (CIN) on official documents. 1. Detailed Analysis: - RITESH JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED in Gujarat violated Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act by not mentioning its CIN on the letterhead. - The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on the company and its officers under Section 454 of the Companies Act - The penalty, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- on the company and Rs. 1,00,000/- each on two directors, reflects the gravity of the offense. 2. Conclusion: - The enforcement of penalties underscores the significance of regulatory compliance in corporate governance.

📢 Important Update for Corporate Compliance📢 MCA Imposes ₹17 Lakh Penalty on Paris Elysees India Private Limited for Non-Compliance The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through its Jaipur office, has imposed substantial penalties on Paris Elysees India Private Limited and its directors for failing to adhere to the Companies Act, 2013, and the Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018. The violations involved the company's failure to submit declarations in Form BEN-1 and to issue notices in Form BEN-4. This case serves as a crucial reminder for companies to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, particularly those related to significant beneficial ownership. #MCA #Corporatecompliances #Compliances #Companiesact #CS #Director #Compliances #Corporate #Governance #Rules

COMPANY PENALISED FOR NOT MENTIONING CIN ON LETTERHEAD- The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (#MCA) in the matter of RITESH JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED recently imposed penalty on company failing to include their Corporate Identification Number (#CIN) on official documents. For Any Important Notification & Updates about TAX, LAW or COMPLIANCES . . Like ❤, Comment 💬, Share ⏩ & Follow us . . Free Consultation- 📬 #CBIC #CBDT #GST #incometax #Compliance #law #CA #cs #notifications #update #knowledge #instagram #facebook #linkedin #twitter #corporate #auditor #finance #Consultant #Consultancy #Prahar #teamprahar

I’m happy to share that I’ve obtained a new certification: Legal Compliance Audit from Riskpro India! The webinar and course will give you an overview of the Outline of the Legal System in India, What makes compliance difficult, the Approach to a Compliance audit, Software, Penalty & more. India has a complicated legal system, with a multiplicity of laws, overlapping requirements, and a governance/implementation system that varies in its response. As a result of this, businesses often find it difficult to decide how to comply, when to comply, and what to comply with. A Legal Compliance Audit is a process that is designed to verify the compliance levels of the company across all segments and to report to the management with a Gap Assessment so that they can take the necessary action. It is often seen that Taxation Laws are monitored by the CFO and the Statutory Financial Auditors, the compliance with Company Law, SEBI is looked by the Company Secretary. But there are many other requirements, covering labor laws, industrial & engineering laws, safety, and social obligations that are overlooked. #legal #legalcompliance #legalrequirement #legalaudit

As a Company Secretary, I often say, "Skipping compliance is like skipping leg day – you'll feel the pain eventually!" 🏋️♂️ Private companies in India must juggle several laws – from the Companies Act, SEBI regulations, to labour laws and environmental norms. Missing a step here can lead to hefty penalties, legal issues, and even damage to reputation. Compliance isn’t just about following rules; it’s about safeguarding the company’s future. Missing a filing date or ignoring a regulatory update might seem like a small slip, but it can quickly snowball into hefty penalties or worse, a legal nightmare! Plus, who doesn’t love the peace of mind knowing your company’s operations are smooth and above board? ⚓ So, let’s embrace compliance not as a burden but as an essential workout for business health! 🏦💼 #ComplianceMatters #CorporateGovernance #CompanySecretary #BusinessEthics #LegalCompliance #mondaymotivation

Legal expenses of India Inc. rose 17% in the last fiscal due to robust deal activities beyond home shores, heavy spending on dispute resolution, and increased compliance costs, showed the annual reports of the top 500 companies listed locally. The Nifty 500 companies spent Rs 52,568 crore ($6.26 billion) in legal expenses for the year ended March 2024, up 17.03% from Rs 44,920 crore in the previous year, data compiled by ETIG show. The top 50 companies by market capitalisation have a lion’s share in the total legal expenses of the Nifty 500 companies. The data reveals that legal spending rose about 17.40% to Rs 21,389 crore in Nifty 50 companies. The Economic Times ETLegalWorld Editor ETLegalWorld NISHIT DHRUVA MDP Legal, Advocates & Solicitors Rajiv Choubey Dalmia Bharat Group Ruchi Khatlawala Reliance Industries Limited Infosys Larsen & ToubroSamvardhana Motherson Reydel Companies Sun Pharmaceuticals

🚨 Penalty for violation of Section 158! 🚨 🔍 The ROC Goa, Daman & Diu has imposed penalty on Win world (India) Limited (Unlisted Company) and it’s Director for violation of Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013. 📜 Here are the facts: 💢 Failure to mention DIN (Director Identification Number) in a reply during Inquiry Proceedings (Observed by the Inquiry Officer). 💢 Adjudication notice issued under Section 454(4) for violation of Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013. 💢 ROC imposed penalty pursuant to Section 172 on Company and its officer in default amounting to INR 50,000 each. ❗️ Remember, Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 clearly states that: Every person or company MUST mention DIN in any Return, Information, or Particulars filed with the Authorities relating to or containing the particulars of a Director. ⚖️ Non-compliance could lead to penalties under Section 172 of the Companies Act, 2013. 📝 Attached is the official order passed by the ROC. 🔍 Stay informed! #LegalCompliance #CompaniesAct #Adjudication #Penalty

Case Law : Shell Infotech Limited V.s Registrar of Companies Maharashtra, Pune March 11, 2024 ( Adjudication Order of penalties in the matter of Shell Infotech Limited under section 454 read with section 137 of Companies Act, 2013 with rule 12 of Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014. Brief Facts: As per the MCA21 database that the Company has defaulted in filing its Financial Statement for the Financial Year 2018-19. The company is in non-compliance of provisions of Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 for non-filing of Financial Statement for the financial year ended 31.03.2019 with a default period of 361 days. The due date of filing was 30.10.2019, however, the Company failed to file its Financial Statement for the Financial Year 2018-19. Subsequently, ROC issued a Show Cause Notice to the Company and its Officers in default, dated 26.10.2020, under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 for adjudication of offence under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. No reply has been received from the Company and its Officers in default till date. Order: Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into accounts the factors mentioned in the relevant Rules, Adjudicating Officer of the opinion that penalty shall be imposed for the default related to non-compliance of section 137 of the Act. The delay, if any, in passing of the order is due to the legal complexities involved in the matter. Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,61,000/-. (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand only) on Company and a penalty of Rs. 1,36,100/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty- Six Thousand and One Hundred only) on each of its Officers in default, for violation of provisions of Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. For details : https://lnkd.in/gm-Zxx6w

MCA Corporate Law Update: RoC puts Rs 10 cr fine on 2 Cos, 9 individuals for violating Companies’ law (April 07, 2024) Under the Companies Act, a company making a private placement offer is not permitted to issue securities to more than 200 persons in aggregate in a financial year. Clamping down for illegal fundraising activities, the corporate affairs ministry has slapped fines totalling nearly Rs 10 crore on two companies and nine individuals as they violated private placement norms. The fines have been imposed on Planify Capital and four individuals as well as on Mayasheel Retail India Pvt Ltd (Bazar India) and five individuals, according to two orders passed by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana on April 3. The action has been taken against the entities for violating Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013, which pertains to the issuance of securities through the private placement route. For Details: https://lnkd.in/g49N9x-4