The case involved holding two DINs for 1462 days in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering mitigating circumstances.
The director voluntarily disclosed the violation and surrendered the duplicate DIN. The authority reduced the penalty to 25% of the maximum due to non-repetitive default. This highlights the benefit of proactive compliance.
Even though the duplicate DIN was surrendered, the violation period attracted penalty. The ruling clarifies that rectification does not eliminate liability for past default. Timely compliance is essential.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of law. The authority granted relief by imposing only 25% of the maximum penalty due to absence of malafide intent.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering the unintentional nature of the default.
The case involved delayed approval for appointing a non-resident whole-time director. Authorities held that the 90-day period must be calculated from the date of appointment, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
The authority penalized the company and directors for non-functional registered office. The case highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 12.
The ROC penalized the company and its officer for filing incorrect AGM details in a statutory return. It held that accuracy of e-forms is mandatory and errors attract penalty despite later correction.
The ROC penalized the company and its directors for not filing financial statements within the prescribed timeline. It held that non-compliance with mandatory filing obligations attracts strict penalties.
A company was penalized for filing incorrect details in MGT-7 despite claiming a clerical mistake. The ruling clarifies that errors in statutory filings attract penalties even if later corrected.
