A delayed filing of a special resolution beyond the statutory deadline resulted in penalties despite claims of bona fide error. The ruling highlights strict compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
Failure to maintain a separate bank account for private placement led to penalties equal to the funds raised. The ruling clarifies strict compliance under Section 42(6) and limits penalty to the lower of ₹2 crore or the amount raised.
The Authority held that information accessible on official websites need not be reproduced under RTI. The appeal was disposed of as the response had already been provided, though delayed.
Delay in filing Form MGT-14 beyond statutory timelines led to penalties on the company and its directors. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 117 compliance requirements.
The case involved non-compliance with Section 42 requirements during a private placement. The authority imposed maximum penalties, stressing that designated accounts must meet strict statutory standards.
The authority held that confusion arising from interim orders did not absolve the professional from taking proactive steps. The case reinforces the expectation of due diligence in insolvency proceedings.
The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with Section 173(1).
The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting individuals not associated during the default period.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements attracts monetary penalties under Section 172.
The case deals with failure to comply with the mandatory 120-day gap between Board meetings. The authority imposed penalties despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
