The authority penalized the company for using funds before allotment and filing statutory returns. It held that Section 42(4) strictly prohibits such utilization. The ruling reinforces compliance in private placements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to transfer unspent CSR funds within the statutory deadline. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties. The ruling emphasizes strict timelines under CSR provisions.
The issue involved failure to disclose Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such omission violates Section 158 and attracts penalty.
The issue involved omission of Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 172.
The ROC held that failure to maintain a functional registered office violates Section 12 of the Companies Act. Returned notices proved non-compliance, leading to penalties on the company and directors.
SEBI clarifies that physical security creation alone is insufficient for demat assets. Trustees must ensure depository-level registration to validate charges and protect investors.
The issue was whether SBO exists without majority shareholding. The authority held that control and influence also determine SBO, making non-disclosure a violation.
The authority penalized directors for executing related party transactions without fresh or valid approvals. It held that reliance on outdated resolutions violates Section 188. The ruling stresses strict approval requirements.
The issue involved non-appointment of an internal auditor despite meeting turnover criteria. The authority held that failure to comply attracts penalty under Section 450.
The issue involved failure to appoint independent directors within the prescribed timeline. The authority held that delay constituted a violation, leading to penalties on the company and its officers.
