Simplifying your business ideas, structures, functionalities, relations & operations
Kolkata ROC adjudication order for violation of Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013 in the matter of M/s Kejriwal Castings Limited
Facts
Suo motu application filed by Co. & MD for adjudication of offence for contravention of Section 134 of CA 2013 for Board Report not prepared on due time
Penalty imposed
On Company : Rs. 6 Lakhs
On MD : Rs. 1 Lakh
Refer Rulings:
Major push by ECI for Enforcing due Compliances by Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs)
Graded Action to be initiated against more than 2100 RUPPs
66 RUPPs claimed IT exemption in FY20 without complying with statutory requirements under Section 29 C of RP Act, 1951; 2174 RUPPs have not submitted contribution report; Action to be initiated against those receiving donations without due statutory compliances
Action initiated against three RUPPs reported to be involved in Serious Financial Impropriety
87 Non-existent RUPPs shall be deleted from the list and benefits under the Symbols Order (1968) withdrawn
The Election Commission of India has initiated action for enforcing due compliances by Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs) for relevant sections 29A and 29C of the RP Act 1951. The Commission is cognizant that compliance to the conditions and regulations in the said Act are essential conditions for maintaining financial discipline, propriety, public accountability, transparency and empowering voters for making informed decisions. In the absence of required compliance, the electorate and ECI are deprived of basic factual information in ensuring ECI’s mandate of conducting free, fair and transparent elections. The Commission has evidence of serious financial impropriety, willful attempts for tax evasion and other illegal financial activities against three specific Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPPs) amounting to fraudulent use of privileges and public trust available to them.
There are 2796 Registered Unrecognized Political Parties (RUPP) as in September, 2021(https://eci.gov.in/files/file/13711-list-of-political-parties-symbol-main-notification- dated23092021/), which is an increase of over 300% since 2001. Every RUPP so registered is required to comply with the following rules/instructions and directions:
1. Section 29Cof RP Act 1951requires a RUPP to furnish a contribution report as prescribed in Form 24 A under Rule 85 B of Conduct of Election Rules 1961.Such contributions received by RUPPs are also 100%exempted from Income Tax as an incentive to the parties for strengthening the electoral democracy.
2. Section 29A(9) mandates every political party to communicate any change in its name, head office, office bearers, address, PAN number to the Commission without delay.
3. The political parties are mandated to also furnish Audited Annual Statements, flowing from ECI’s transparency guidelines dated 29/08/2014.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. UoI & Others (AIR 1996 SC 3081) has upheld the requirement of maintaining audited accounts by the political parties as mandatory and to be strictly enforced. The political parties, therefore, are under a statutory obligation to furnish a return of income for each assessment year to be eligible for exemption from income-tax.
4. The Political Party, [for being registered, as a condition precedent prescribed by ECI under its power under section 29 A (6)] needs to undertake to include in its constitution that it must contest an election conducted by the Election Commission within 5 years of its registration.
5. Further, upon participation in an election, Political Parties are required to furnish their election expenditure statement within 75 days, in case of Assembly elections, and within 90 days, in case of Lok Sabha elections.
**(https://eci.gov.in/files/category/1551-general-election-2019-including-vellore-pc/)
The Commission has noted with serious concern that out of total 2796 RUPPs, a large number are neither taking part in electoral process nor adhering to the one or several of the above requirements which is not only violative of statutory requirements but also defeats the purpose of clean electoral ecosystem. In view of the foregoing, the Commission, in discharge of its mandate of ensuring just, free, fair & transparent electoral process hereby directs the following corrective measures:
1. There are 87 RUPPs, whose address of communication, was statutorily required as registration requirement under section 29A(4).Any change in address was required to be communicated to the ECI under section 29A(9), which they have not complied. These RUPPs have been found to be non-existent after a physical verification carried out by the respective Chief Electoral Officers. The names of such non-existent RUPPs shall be deleted from the list of register of unrecognized registered political parties. Any party aggrieved from this, may approach the concerned Chief Electoral Officer/ Election Commission within 30 days of the issue of this direction along with all evidences of existence, other legal and regulatory compliances including year wise annual audited accounts, contribution report, expenditure report, updation of office bearers including authorized signatories for financial transactions (including bank account). The segregated list of such RUPPs shall be sent to respective CEOs and CBDT for requisite action under extant legal framework.
2. 87 such RUPPs, in absence of ensuring remedial measures listed above, render themselves liable to be not entitled to have benefits under the Symbols Order, 1968, including allocation of common symbol.
3. Three RUPPs which have been reported, prima facie to be involved in serious financial impropriety such as incriminating documents related to bogus donation receipts, formation of shell entities, bogus and non-genuine purchases, facilitating accommodation entries, etc., shall be proceeded against under the extant legal/regulatory regime including entitlement to avail the benefits of Symbols Order, 1968. A reference shall be sent to the Department of Revenue, who have reported misuse, for taking all necessary legal and criminal actions against 3 RUPPs, as appropriate under the extant legal framework.
4. It has been reported that income tax exemptions have been taken to the tune of Rs 445 crores in 2018-19 by 199 RUPPs and Rs 608 crores in 2019-20 by 219 RUPPs. Of these, 66 RUPPS have claimed income tax exemption without submitting contribution reports in Form 24A as mandated under section 29C of the Act.
In view of the fact that there are 2174 RUPPs, which have not submitted contribution reports, the list shall be sent to the Department of Revenue for taking all consequential action as per the RP Act 1951 read with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other statutory/regulatory regime including not granting exemption / withdrawing exemption, if already granted/ examining liability of wrongly claiming exemption as the case may be.
5. 2056 RUPPs, which have failed to furnish Annual Audited Account of the concerned financial year, are indicative of gaps in vital financial information including bank account, PAN, authorized signatories pertaining to those RUPPs, statement of assets and liabilities, contributions received details of donors, expenditure, etc. Therefore, CEOs shall put the list of such RUPPS on their respective websites and afford an opportunity to such RUPPs to comply with extant legal and regulatory regime within 30 days. Non-compliance may make such RUPPs not entitled to have benefits under the Symbols Order, 1968, including allocation of common symbol.
6. 100 RUPPs, which have failed to furnish Election Expenditure Statements after the contest of election(s), have violated the directions of Election Commission. They may approach concerned Chief Electoral Officer with full facts within 30 days of the issue of this direction for remedial action, if any, to avoid any consequential action.
7. All Chief Electoral Officers shall put this order on their websites for compliance and for affording an opportunity to anyone aggrieved by above action. Any RUPP aggrieved by any action under point 8.1 to 8.6 may approach concerned Chief Electoral Officer with full facts within 30 days of the issue of this direction with all evidences inter-alia including proof of existence, other legal and regulatory compliances made till now such as submission of year wise annual audited accounts, contribution report, expenditure report , if any, updation of office bearers including authorized signatories for financial transactions (including bank account) and operations under the Symbols Order 1968, etc.
Order No. 56/pol.parties/2021/PPS-III (Part)/Conf-2022 dated May 25, 2022 can be accessed on https://eci.gov.in/
Press Release dated 25 May 2022, Release Id :-1828251
*Delhi ROC adjudication order for non maintenance of Registered office in the matter of Garage Cowork Private Limited (Order dated 13/05/2022)*
https://youtu.be/BD7HOuadhKA
✒️ *Action initiated on the basis of _On line complain through serious fraud form_ against Co.*
✒️ *Complainant also filed a writ petition to HC praying appropriate action for default of provisions of Companies Act*
✒️ *Penalty imposed on Company: Rs. 1 Lakh, and on two foreign director Rs. 1 Lakh each*
Gujarat ROC Adjudication order for violation of Section 92(4) & 137(1) of the CA 2013 in the matter of M/S HCBB Industry Private Limited
👉 Total penalty imposed for non filing of Annual return: Rs. 357,000/-
👉Total penalty imposed for non filing of financial statements: Rs. 364300/-
👉 ROC further directed to file overdue Annual Return & Financial statements with applicable/additional fees, failing which proceeded u/s 454A of CA 2013
Refer Section 454A. Penalty for repeated default.
Section 454A. Where a company or an officer of a company or any other person having already been subjected to penalty for default under any provisions of this Act, again commits such default within a period of three years from the date of order imposing such penalty passed by the adjudicating officer or the Regional Director, as the case may be, it or he shall be liable for the second or subsequent defaults for an amount equal to twice the amount of penalty provided for such default under the relevant provisions of this Act.
With its objective of universal computerisation and Information and Communication Technology enablement of all the District & Subordinate Court complexes, Department of Justice in close coordination with eCommittee of Supreme Court of India is implementing eCourts Mission Mode Project. To explore the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial domain, the Supreme Court of India has constituted Artificial Intelligence Committee which has mainly identified application of AI technology in Translation of judicial documents, Legal research assistance and Process automation. However, in the eCourts Phase II, which is under implementation since 2015, AI and Blockchain Technology have not been used.
As Phase II of the eCourts project is coming to an end, a draft Vision Document has been formulated by the eCommittee of the Supreme Court for eCourts Project Phase III. Based on this document, a Detailed Project Report (DPR) is being prepared by the eCommittee of Supreme Court of India. In the draft DPR, the eCommittee of the Supreme Court of India mentions about use of AI and Blockchain technology.
Disposal of cases in courts is within the domain of the judiciary. No time frame has been prescribed for disposal of various kinds of cases by the respective courts. Government has no role in disposal of cases in courts. Timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors which, inter-alia, include availability of adequate number of judges and judicial officers, supporting court staff and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants and proper application of rules and procedures. There are several other factors which may lead to delay in disposal of cases. These, inter-alia, include vacancies of judges, frequent adjournments and lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing. However, as per the draft DPR, AI might be used for Prediction and Forecast, Improving Administrative Efficiency, Automated Filing, Smart Scheduling of Cases, Enhancing the Case Information System & Communicate with litigants through chat bots which may assist in early disposal of cases.
This information was given by the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju in a written reply in Rajya Sabha, today.
As per available information, the ground water levels in certain parts of the country are declining because of continuous withdrawal necessitated by increased demand of fresh water for various uses, vagaries of rainfall, increased population, industrialization & urbanization etc, Certain provision of Easements Act 1882 may have contributed to over-extraction of groundwater in certain places vis-à-vis extraction of groundwater by the landowners for domestic and agricultural purposes.
Though water is a State subject, Central Government has taken a number of important measures for conservation, management of ground water including effective implementation of rain water harvesting in the country, which can be seen at
URL:http://jalshakti-dowr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Steps_to_control_water_depletion_Feb2021.pdf
Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) has been constituted under the ‘Environment (Protection) Act, 1986’ for the purpose of regulation and control of ground water extraction. The Department of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation has issued latest guidelines for regulation and control of groundwater extraction on 24 Sept. 2020. These guidelines advocate a participatory approach for sustainable ground water management in agriculture sector including working towards crop rotation, diversification & other initiatives to reduce over-dependence on groundwater. CGWA is regulating ground water in 20 states/UTs and in remaining States/UTs, regulation is being carried out by respective State Governments/UT Administration.
This Information was given by the Minister of State for Jal Shakti, Shri Bishweswar Tudu in a written reply in Rajya Sabha today.
Accountability in higher judiciary is maintained through “in-house mechanism”. The Supreme Court of India, in its full Court meeting on 7thMay, 1997, adopted two Resolutions namely (i) ‘The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” which lays down certain judicial standards and principles to be observed and followed by the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts (ii) “in-house procedure’ for taking suitable remedial action against judges who do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial life.
As per the established “In-house procedure’ for the Higher Judiciary, the Chief Justice of India is competent to receive complaints against the conduct of Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of the High Courts. Similarly, the Chief Justices of the High Courts are competent to receive complaints against the conduct of High Court Judges. The complaints/representations received are forwarded to the Chief Justice of India or to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, as the case may be, for appropriate action.
During last 05 years (from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021), 1631 complaintswere received in the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) on the functioning of the judiciary including judicial corruption and forwarded to the CJI/Chief Justice of High Courts, respectively, as per the procedure established under “in-house mechanism”.
This information was given by the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju in a written reply in Lok Sabha today.
Ministry of Law and Justice Press release April 1, 2022
Chapter 9 of the Manual of the Parliamentary Procedures in the Government of India provides procedures for legislation and the Legislative Department follows the procedure stated in that Manual while drafting laws. The Ministry/ Department to whom a subject matter is allocated under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 formulates the legislative proposals in consultation with experts and stake holders as well as all interested persons and authorities concerned. The Legislative Department prepares draft laws in consultation with the administrative Ministry concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Manual of Parliamentary Procedures, ordinarily within thirty days from the date of receipt of the proposal and after clearance from the Department of Legal Affairs. During a meeting of Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee the then Secretary, Legislative Department pointed out that many a times proposals are sent by the administrative Ministry very late, giving little or no room to examine them from legal and drafting angle. On every such occasion the administrative Departments are suitably advised verbally by the Legislative Department not to submit the proposal at the last moment, since such action compromises the quality of legislative drafting.
This information was given by the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju in a written reply in Lok Sabha today.
Ministry of Law and Justice dated 01st April 2022
The sanctioned judge strength of the Supreme Court is 34 (including Chief Justice of India). As on 25.03.2021, 32 Judges are in position, leaving 02 vacancies to be filled. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956, as originally enacted, provided for the maximum number of Judges(excluding the Chief Justice of India) to be 10. This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1977. The SupremeCourt (Number of Judges) AmendmentAct, 1986 augmented the strength of the Supreme Court Judges from 17 to 25 excluding the Chief Justice of India. Subsequently, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2009 further augmented the strength of the SupremeCourtJudges,from 25 to 30.
The Chief Justice of India vide letter dated 21.6.2019 requested the Government to consider augmenting the Judge-strength in the Supreme Court appropriately. Though there has been no criteria for fixing the judge strength of the Supreme Court, in view of the number of cases pending disposal, an increase in the judge strength was considered by Government. The sanctioned strength of Supreme Court of India has been increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India) w.e.f. 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the Government has not received any further proposal for increase in the strength of Supreme Court Judges.
The Government had brought into operation the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 w.e.f.13.04.2015. However, both the Acts were challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 16.10.2015declaredboth the Acts as unconstitutional and void. The Collegium system as existing prior to the enforcement of the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 was declared to be operative. Subsequently, the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 directed the Government to finalize the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) by supplementing it in consultation with the Supreme Court Collegium taking into consideration eligibility criteria, transparency, establishment of secretariat and mechanism to deal with complaints. The MoP is under finalization by the Government in consultation with the Supreme Court Collegium.
This information was given by the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju in a written reply in Lok Sabha today
Ministry of Law and Justice Press release dated 01 April 2022
The Ministry/ Department to whom a subject matter is allocated under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 formulates the legislative proposals in consultation with experts and stake holders as well as all interested persons and authorities concerned. The Legislative Department prepares draft laws in consultation with the administrative Ministry concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Manual of Parliamentary Procedures.
Chapter 9 of the Manual of the Parliamentary Procedures in the Government of India provides procedures for legislation and the Legislative Department follows the procedure stated in that Manual while drafting laws.
Paragraph 9.3 of Chapter 9 of the Manual of the Parliamentary Procedures provides as under:-
“The Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) will prepare a draft Bill ordinarily within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proposal after clearance from the Department of Legal Affairs, unless any clarifications are required or it is not possible to do so for contingencies such as the draftsman being busy with budget proposals etc., on the basis of the material made available by the concerned Ministry/Department, holding discussions with the officers of that Ministry/Department for getting various aspects of the Bill clarified, wherever considered necessary”.
This information was given by the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju in a written reply in Rajya Sabha, today.
Business So Simple 