Failure to disclose complete allottee details in PAS-3 attracted penalties under Section 450. The order highlights the importance of accurate reporting in securities allotment.
The issue was whether an insolvency professional fulfilled due diligence obligations under Section 29A. The Committee held that failure to verify and disclose disqualification of a wilful defaulter invalidated the process. It emphasized that eligibility must be continuously assessed and cannot be ignored at later stages.
The case examined whether Section 42 was violated in a private placement. The authority ruled there was no substantive breach and replaced the penalty with a nominal fine for a procedural lapse.
The case addressed delayed filing of return of allotment under Section 42(9). The authority reduced the penalty after recognizing a government circular that excluded part of the delay period.
The authority found non-compliance with Section 42(6) due to absence of a separate bank account. It held that such violation attracts penalty under Section 42(10).
Omission of required attachments in annual return filing resulted in penalties under Section 450. The decision stresses the importance of accurate and complete filings.
Failure to attach share transfer details in the annual return resulted in penalties under the residuary provision. The ruling highlights that even minor filing omissions can trigger statutory penalties.
Failure to file the one-time DPT-3 return within the prescribed timeline resulted in penalties under Section 450. The authority held that delayed compliance, even if later rectified, constitutes a violation. The case highlights strict adherence to deposit reporting requirements.
The company admitted that omission of the resolution attachment was unintentional. However, the adjudicating authority still imposed penalties under Section 450. The ruling confirms that intent does not negate statutory compliance obligations.
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.
