The authority penalized the company for not appointing a Secretarial Auditor despite meeting statutory thresholds. It held that compliance under Section 204 is mandatory. The ruling reinforces strict corporate governance obligations.
The authority penalized the company for using funds before allotment and filing statutory returns. It held that Section 42(4) strictly prohibits such utilization. The ruling reinforces compliance in private placements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to transfer unspent CSR funds within the statutory deadline. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties. The ruling emphasizes strict timelines under CSR provisions.
The issue involved failure to disclose Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such omission violates Section 158 and attracts penalty.
The issue involved omission of Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 172.
The Tribunal upheld contravention but reduced penalties due to lack of justification for maximum fines. It emphasized proportionality in penalty determination. Key takeaway: penalty must be reasoned and proportionate.
The ROC held that failure to maintain a functional registered office violates Section 12 of the Companies Act. Returned notices proved non-compliance, leading to penalties on the company and directors.
The Tribunal upheld attachment, ruling that funds used in a conspiracy can qualify as proceeds of crime. It held that even layered investments linked to illegal activity are attachable under PMLA.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
