The Madras High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the institution stage without numbering the suit. It ruled that courts perform a ministerial function while numbering suits and set aside the trial court’s rejection order.
The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 9A is not required when a charitable trust sets off earlier years’ excess application against current year income. The set-off is allowable as application of income under Section 11.
The Karnataka High Court set aside orders rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 credit claims after noting that relevant documents were not examined earlier. The matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority.
High Court held that adjusting the entire refund during operation of a Tribunal stay order contravened the order and required refund of the excess amount.
The Court indicated that the three-year practice requirement should continue and sought suggestions from High Courts and law universities before deciding on the plea for exemption.
ROC imposed a ₹10,000 penalty for incorrect AOC-4 XBRL filing due to errors in attachments and certification. The ruling reinforces strict liability for accuracy in MCA e-forms.
The authority penalized the Managing Director for incorrectly reporting the AGM date in MGT-7. It held that even clerical errors violate Rule 8(3), attracting Section 450 where no specific penalty exists.
ROC imposed heavy penalty for failing to appoint a Company Secretary within six months. The ruling stresses strict adherence to Section 203 timelines.
The authority penalized the company for failing to hold the required fourth Board Meeting. It clarified that absence of a specific penalty provision attracts Section 450 as a residual penalty.
