Gujarat ROC penalty order for non certification of MGT- 7 by Practising Company Secretary in the matter of Mr. Parag Sheth, Liquidator of M/s Maxroth Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Order dated 17th Jan 2022)

Gujarat ROC penalty order for non certification of MGT- 7 by Practising Company Secretary in the matter of Mr. Parag Sheth, Liquidator of M/s Maxroth Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Order dated 17th Jan 2022)

As per Section 92 (1) Every company  shall prepare a return (hereinafter referred to as the annual return) in the prescribed form containing the particulars as they stood on the close of the financial year  regarding—………signed by a director and the company secretary, or where there is no company secretary, by a  company secretary in practice.

Section 450. Punishment where no specific penalty or punishment is provided

If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person.

Judicial updates-19th Jan 2022

Judicial updates-19th Jan 2022

CCI directs probe against Google for Abusing its Dominant Position against Publishers

In re Digital News Publishers Association (CCI) dated 07/01/2022

NCLT/NCLAT should not pass ad hoc orders regarding fee and expenses payable to Resolution Professionals

Devarajan Raman Vs Bank of India Limited (Supreme Court of India) dated 05/01/2022

NCLAT Stays Order Initiating CIRP as parties entered Settlement Agreement

Vinayak K Deshpande Vs Nexo Industries P Ltd (NCLAT Chennai) dated 04/01/2022

SC Restores Limitation Extension & excludes Period From 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 From Limitation

In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (Supreme Court of India) dated 10/01/2022

Section 45 PMLA Act Gets Triggered while Considering Anticipatory Bail Plea

Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate Vs Dr. V.C. Mohan (Supreme Court of India) dated 04/01/2022

Builder obliged to provide occupancy certificate to flat owners & Failure amount to deficiency in service

Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) -11/01/2022

Comments made during Mediation or Settlement Proceedings cannot be relied by Courts

Arjab Jena@ Arjab Kumar Jena Vs. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik (Supreme Court of India) dated 05/01/2022

Nobody has a fundamental right to a public holiday

Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia Vs Administrator Union Territory (Bombay High Court) dated 05/01/2022

God cannot be summoned by Court for inspection or verification

S.P. Eswaramurthy Vs Government of Tamil nadu (Madras High Court) dated 06/01/2022

Employees refusing regular promotion offer disentitled to financial upgradation benefits

Union of India Vs Manju Arora (Supreme Court of India) dated 03/01/2022

Legal updates

https://youtube.com/c/EducationSoSimple

https://chat.whatsapp.com/H8gz8dr8bNGIHmtV2MfhIY

Regards,

Bipul Kumar

Delhi ROC order for violation of Section 92 (4) & 137(3) of CA, 2013 imposing no penalty by applying amended provisions of Section 454(3) in the case of Central Cottage Industry Corporation of India Ltd. Order dated-13th Jan 2022

Delhi ROC order for violation of Section 92 (4) & 137(3) of CA, 2013 imposing no penalty by applying amended provisions of Section 454(3) in the case of Central Cottage Industry Corporation of India Ltd. Order dated-13th Jan 2022

Applying amended Proviso of section 454(3) of C A, 2013 w.e.f.dated 22 Jan 2021 imposing no penalty

Reference of Proviso of section 454(3) of C A, 2013

Provided that in case the default relates to non-compliance of sub-section (4) of section 92 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 137 and such default has been rectified either prior to, or within thirty days of, the issue of the notice by the adjudicating officer, no penalty shall be imposed in this regard and all proceedings under this section in respect of such default shall be deemed to be concluded.

Higher addition fee upto 18 times on Certain MCA e Forms (MCA Notification dated 11th Jan 2022)

Higher addition fee upto 18 times on Certain MCA e Forms (MCA Notification dated 11th Jan 2022)

Please note 👉

Above Notification shall not be applicable on section 92(Annual return- Form MGT 7/7A), Section 137 (Form AOC 4). Additional fee Rs. 100/- per day will be applicable without any upper limit

Higher additional fees shall be applicable, if there is delay in filing eform 22 or e form PAS 3, as the case may be, on two or more occasions, within a period of 365 days from date of filing of last such belated eform for which additional fee or higher additional fee, as the case may be, was payable.

Wherever Higher additional fee is payable, additional fee shall not be charged.

Bangalore ROC passed penalty order for violation of Section 117(1) failure to file MGT 14 beyond 300 days by applying lesson penalty pursuant to amended section 446B of CA 2013

Bangalore ROC passed penalty order for violation of Section 117(1) failure to file MGT 14 beyond 300 days by applying lesson penalty pursuant to amended section 446B of CA 2013

Learning points:

-What to do if MGT 14 is not filed within 300 days ?

-How to apply lessor penalty provision as amended section 446B of CA 2013 on Small Company

Please also share your practical experiences in dealing such type of adjudication process.

Gujarat ROC Penalty order for non maintaining of Registered office (Section 12(1) violation) passed on dated 28th Dec 2021 in the matter of Tunwale E Vehicle India Pvt. Ltd.

Gujarat ROC Penalty order for non maintaining of Registered office (Section 12(1) violation) passed on dated 28th Dec 2021 in the matter of Tunwale E Vehicle India Pvt. Ltd.

Published on 10th Jan 2022

Penalty imposed as per Section 12 (8)- If any default is made in complying with the requirements of this section, the company and every officer who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of one thousand rupees for every day during which the default continues but not exceeding one lakh rupees.

Section violated: 👉 Section 12 (1) A company shall, [within thirty days of its incorporation] and at all times thereafter, have a registered office capable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices as may be addressed to it.

Section 12 (4) Notice of every change of the situation of the registered office, verified in the manner prescribed, after the date of incorporation of the company, shall be given to the Registrar [within thirty days] of the change, who shall record the same.

ROC Delhi Adjudication Order for non compliances of Section 203 of CA 2013 (Delay in appointment of Company Secretary) in the case of Yamuna International Airport Pvt. Ltd.

ROC Delhi Adjudication Order for non compliances of Section 203 of CA 2013 (Delay in appointment of Company Secretary) in the case of Yamuna International Airport Pvt. Ltd.

Order passed on 29th Dec 2021 imposing penalty on Company & Director.

👉 Violation of Section 203(4) of CA 2013

(4) If the office of any whole-time key managerial personnel is vacated, the resulting vacancy shall be filled-up by the Board at a meeting of the Board within a period of six months from the date of such vacancy.

Penalty imposed as per Section 203(5) If any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees.

कारपोरेट कार्य मंत्रालय (MCA) और फाइनेंशियल इंटेलिजेंस यूनिट-इंडिया (MOF) के बीच डाटा के आदान प्रदान के लिए MOU Press release-15th Dec 2021

कारपोरेट कार्य मंत्रालय (MCA) और फाइनेंशियल इंटेलिजेंस यूनिट-इंडिया (MOF) के बीच डाटा के आदान प्रदान के लिए MOU Press release-15th Dec 2021

एमओयू से स्वचालित और नियमित आधार पर एमसीए और एफआईयू-इंडिया के बीच डाटा और सूचना साझा करना सुनिश्चित होगा। इससे संदिग्ध लेनदेनों से संबंधित सूचना, केवाईसी से जुड़ी जानकारियां और देश में पंजीकृत कंपनियों के समेकित वित्तीय नतीजों जैसी विशेष जानकारियां साझा हो सकेंगी। एमओयू से एमसीए और एफआईयू-इंडिया दोनों के बीच नियामकीय उद्देश्यों से एक निर्बाध लिंकेज सुनिश्चित होगा। डाटा के नियमित आदान प्रदान के अलावा, एमसीए और एफआईयू-इंडिया अनुरोध पर अपने संबंधित डाटाबेस में उपलब्ध किसी भी सूचना का आदान प्रदान करेंगे। इसका उद्देश्य छानबीन, निरीक्षण, जांच और अभियोग होगा।

Judicial Updates-11th Dec 2021

Bombay HC decodes Non Obstante Clause

Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) dated 02/12/2021 Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause.

Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) dated 02/12/2021

Authority of NCLAT Technical member for cancelling company’s license cannot be questioned

India Awake For Transparency Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) dated 09/11/2021

Supreme Court directs Integration of Technology adopted to streamline, monitor all stages in Govt. Revenue Litigation, to ITAT, CESTAT, Other Tribunals

C.C.E. and S.T. Vs Bilfinder Neo Structo Contruction Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) dated 29 Nov 2021

Section 12 of IBC- Resolution process should complete within specified time limit – SC

Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited Vs Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian (Supreme Court of India) dated 01 Dec 2021

Fine should adequately compensate the complainant S. 138, N.I. Act

 Yasir Amin Khan Vs Abdul Rashid Ganie (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) dated 22 Nov 2021

Section 48 of Arbitration Act not permits review on merits of dispute.

EIG (Mauritius) Limited Vs McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (Calcutta High Court) dated 10/11/2021

Collection of cash handling charges from stamp vendors by SBI is illegal

P. S. Shanmuga Sundaram Vs  Director Treasuries and Accounts Department (Madras High Court) dated 29/10/2021

Regards

Bipul Kumar