The issue involved allegations of assisting in bogus accounting entries. The ruling held that without certification or statutory role, the CA cannot be held liable for misconduct.
The authority held that securities cannot be allotted before dematerialising directors’ shareholding. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent rectification.
The authority penalized the company for issuing shares below the valuer-determined price, even though the shortfall was later recovered with interest. Rectification did not absolve the initial violation.
Delay in filing return of allotment under Section 42 resulted in penalties. However, reduced penalties were granted due to startup status under Section 446B.
The authority penalized premature utilization of funds raised through private placement in violation of Section 42(4). The ruling highlights that funds cannot be used before allotment and filing compliance requirements.
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.
