😱 “56 Days Late… ₹1.16 Lakh Penalty Shocks Directors!”
😱 A 56-day delay in filing PAS-3 has cost Game Changers Texfab Limited and its directors a ₹1.16 lakh penalty! The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi has taken strict action under Section 42(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, proving once again that even a small delay can turn into a massive penalty.
In this detailed video, we break down:
✅ What Section 42 of the Companies Act says about Private Placement.
✅ The 15-day timeline for filing Return of Allotment (e-Form PAS-3).
✅ How ROC calculated the penalty of ₹56,000 for the company and ₹60,000 on directors.
✅ Why the company’s claim of “Small Company” benefit under Section 446B was rejected.
✅ Why directors were held personally liable despite appointing an Officer-in-Default (OID).
✅ Lessons every company and director must learn from this case.
⚠️ Key Takeaway: Compliance delays are costly. Directors must act responsibly, as ignorance of law is no excuse.
📖 Legal Provisions Covered:
Section 42(8) & 42(9) – Private Placement & Penalties
Section 446B – Lesser Penalties for Small Companies
Section 454 – Adjudication of Penalties
Officer-in-Default Rules under the Companies Act
📌 If you’re a Company Secretary, Director, Compliance Officer, or a Law Student, this video is a must-watch to avoid such pitfalls in corporate compliance.
🚨 Don’t forget to LIKE 👍, SHARE 📢, and SUBSCRIBE 🔔 for more real compliance cases, ROC orders, and practical insights!
📢 Follow us for more updates:
https://www.youtube.com/@RamanareddyFCS/playlists
https://www.youtube.com/@Ramana-legal/playlists
www.youtube.com/@RamanareddyFCS
www.youtube.com/@Ramana-legal
Видео 😱 “56 Days Late… ₹1.16 Lakh Penalty Shocks Directors!” канала RR Corporates
In this detailed video, we break down:
✅ What Section 42 of the Companies Act says about Private Placement.
✅ The 15-day timeline for filing Return of Allotment (e-Form PAS-3).
✅ How ROC calculated the penalty of ₹56,000 for the company and ₹60,000 on directors.
✅ Why the company’s claim of “Small Company” benefit under Section 446B was rejected.
✅ Why directors were held personally liable despite appointing an Officer-in-Default (OID).
✅ Lessons every company and director must learn from this case.
⚠️ Key Takeaway: Compliance delays are costly. Directors must act responsibly, as ignorance of law is no excuse.
📖 Legal Provisions Covered:
Section 42(8) & 42(9) – Private Placement & Penalties
Section 446B – Lesser Penalties for Small Companies
Section 454 – Adjudication of Penalties
Officer-in-Default Rules under the Companies Act
📌 If you’re a Company Secretary, Director, Compliance Officer, or a Law Student, this video is a must-watch to avoid such pitfalls in corporate compliance.
🚨 Don’t forget to LIKE 👍, SHARE 📢, and SUBSCRIBE 🔔 for more real compliance cases, ROC orders, and practical insights!
📢 Follow us for more updates:
https://www.youtube.com/@RamanareddyFCS/playlists
https://www.youtube.com/@Ramana-legal/playlists
www.youtube.com/@RamanareddyFCS
www.youtube.com/@Ramana-legal
Видео 😱 “56 Days Late… ₹1.16 Lakh Penalty Shocks Directors!” канала RR Corporates
ROC penalty ROC Delhi order Companies Act 2013 Section 42 penalty PAS-3 filing Return of Allotment Company Law compliance MCA adjudication order Officer in Default Section 454 penalty Section 446B small company ROC fine corporate compliance India Game Changers Texfab case ROC Delhi penalty 2025 company directors penalty delay in PAS-3 corporate governance India company law case study MCA penalties 2025
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
28 сентября 2025 г. 10:00:05
00:10:44
Другие видео канала