The order deals with failure to submit complete allottee particulars in statutory filings. It reinforces that incomplete disclosures under allotment rules attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The issue was failure to disclose allottee occupation in PAS-3. The key takeaway is that incomplete allotment details trigger penalties under Section 450.
The issue involved failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalties under Section 450.
The order examines failure to disclose mandatory allottee details in statutory filings. It confirms that such omissions attract penalty under the residuary provision of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation violates Section 152(6)(a). A monetary penalty was imposed on the officer in default despite suo motu disclosure.
The case addressed failure to appoint a woman director within the statutory timeline. The authority held the company and its officers liable under the residuary penalty provision.
The issue was failure to appoint a CFO after crossing the capital threshold. The takeaway is that delays in KMP appointments attract steep statutory penalties.
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
The order examines prolonged delay in filing mandatory board resolutions approving accounts. It underscores that late compliance, even if rectified later, can attract maximum penalties under the residuary provision.
