Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied...
Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impermissible.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
