The case involved issuing a private placement offer before filing the required resolution. It was held that such non-compliance attracts penalties despite subsequent filings.
Failure to include required disclosures in an explanatory statement led to adjudication and penalty. Reduced penalty applied due to startup status under Section 446B.
The issue involved delayed filing of statutory forms under company law. The authority imposed penalties under the residuary provision, emphasizing strict timelines for compliance.
The issue involved late filing of commencement declaration under company law. The authority imposed penalties despite the delay being caused by external banking issues.
The case involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a whole-time company secretary. The authority held that delayed rectification does not remove liability for past violations.
The authority penalized prolonged non-compliance with mandatory appointment requirements under Section 203. Despite later rectification, penalties were imposed, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
The Tribunal held that maintaining ticket prices by increasing base price after GST reduction violated Section 171. It directed deposit of profiteered amount while denying penalty due to non-retrospective applicability.
The issue involved false reports about a new authority for CA exams. ICAI clarified that no such proposal is confirmed, urging students to ignore rumors and focus on exams.
The Commission found no proof that tender conditions excluded competitors or favoured select players. It held that procurement terms alone do not violate competition law.
The update outlines revised compliance forms, timelines, and penalties under the new rules. It highlights a structured transition from existing provisions to a stricter and more automated compliance framework.
