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 adjudicating authority penalized an individual for possessing dual DINs. The order reinforces strict compliance with DIN-related provisions under company law.
The authority penalized the company for conducting only one Board meeting instead of the required four in a year. It held that non-compliance with Section 173(1) attracts penalty under Section 450.
Holds that failure to appoint a whole-time Company Secretary within the statutory timeline attracts penalty under section 203(5). The key takeaway is that delays, even if due to transition issues, do not excuse non-compliance.
The case addressed non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3). The authority ruled no penalty since compliance was validly undertaken by the Resolution Professional during CIRP.
The case involved non-filing of annual return under Section 92(5). The authority held that filing through GNL-2 by the RP during CIRP constituted valid compliance, resulting in no penalty.
