ROC Imposes Penalty on company for failing to alter objects as per change in business line:

ROC imposed a penalty on the company and its directors for failing to file Form MGT-14 after passing a special resolution to amend its Memorandum of Association.
Failure to File Special Resolution Costs Company

ROC Imposes Penalty on company for failing to alter objects as per change in business line
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Kanpur has issued an order of adjudication dated February 04, 2026, imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 1.75 lakh on a company named Meta Tech Ventures Private Limited and its three directors under Section 454 of the Companies Act 2013.
The disputed company was established in 2018. Since its establishment, the company has been engaged in business according to its objectives. In September 2024, the company got involved in some additional activities, including Information Technology (IT) for its overall development. An Extraordinary General Meeting was conducted on November 03, 2025; there, the company issued a special resolution to amend its Memorandum of Association.
The aim of this action is to grow and match their objectives with the company's existing and suggested business activities. However, to register the said special resolution, the company did not furnish Form MGT-14 dated November 06, 2025. This reflected an explicit violation of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Considering the same, the concerned authority held the company and its directors liable for penal action under section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013, and hence imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 1 lakh on the company, Meta Tech Ventures Private Limited and Rs. 75,000 on its three directors named Raj Kumar Agrawal, Megha Agrawal, and Tripti Verma (Rs. 25,000 on each). Additionally, directed to pay the imposed penalty amount and rectify the default within 90 days of receiving the order.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2623My Recent Articles
- ITAT Deletes Section 69 Unexplained Investment Addition After Father-in-Law’s ITR Establishes Source of Stamp Duty PaymentPremium
- Mere Expense Disallowance Cannot Trigger Section 271(1)(c) Penalty; ITAT Partly Allows AppealPremium
- ROC: Company and Directors Faces Penalty for Not Having Any Office at Registered Location of BusinessPremium
- ROC Imposes Penalty on Company and Director for Failure to Furnish Financial Statements for FY 2021-22
- ICSI Seeks Further Extension of CCFS 2026 Beyond August 31 Amid Technical Issues on MCA-21 Portal
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts







