The regulator held that failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within statutory timelines violates sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment does not erase the default, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
The Supreme Court corrected errors in income and disability evaluation in a motor accident claim. It held that notional income under the Second Schedule was inappropriate and recalculated compensation on a realistic basis.
Failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within timelines was held to violate sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment did not absolve liability, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
Failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 14(6). The ROC imposed penalties under section 450, underscoring strict disclosure requirements.
Non-filing of MGT-15 for two financial years was held to violate section 121. Officers were penalised despite the company being under liquidation.
Specific performance was refused as readiness and willingness were not established on the due date. Applying equity after prolonged delay, the Court substituted enforcement with a ₹3 crore lump-sum.
ROC Chennai held that listed companies must appoint an internal auditor under Section 138. Non-compliance over multiple years resulted in penalties on directors.
ROC Chennai held that non-filing of the secretarial audit report violates Section 204. Directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance across multiple years.
The Tribunal found that CIT(A) erred by linking the protective addition to another company. The assessment was remanded for correct identification of the beneficiary.
The Court held that a lawful auction cannot be scrapped merely because the authority expects a better price later. Once the highest bid exceeds the reserve price and no illegality exists, cancellation is arbitrary.
