The Court held that ITC earlier denied as time-barred cannot stand after the retrospective relaxation under Section 16(5), reinforcing substantive credit rights.
The ordinance promises social security for platform workers but lacks enforceable timelines, deterrent penalties, and operational clarity, limiting its real-world impact.
The adjudicating authority held that filing an e-Form with incorrect particulars attracts penalty under Section 450. Administrative rectification does not wipe out the completed contravention.
The ROC held that filing AOC-4 with incorrect company status details constitutes a violation of Rule 8(3). Rectification through GNL-1 does not eliminate liability, and penalties were imposed under Section 450.
Filing incorrect AGM date and due date in Form AOC-4 triggered adjudication proceedings under Section 454. The authority emphasized that MCA filings are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Responsibility for accuracy rests with the authorised signatory, who was held personally liable.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a Whole-time Director appointment was made effective before passing the Board resolution. The five-day contravention triggered action under Section 450.
The Registrar held that appointing a CFO with retrospective effect without a prior Board resolution violates Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013. Penalty was imposed under Section 450 as no specific punishment is prescribed for the default.
The authority found that approving financial statements before obtaining the Secretarial Audit Report contravened statutory requirements. A monetary penalty was imposed with compliance directions.
Failure to properly maintain Minutes Books under Section 118 led to adjudication by ROC. The company and its directors were fined for breaching Secretarial Standard-1.
The company failed to meet the statutory quorum of 30 members at AGMs, attracting penalty under Section 450. Directors were also fined ₹50,000 each for non-compliance.
