Court Criticizes Penalty u/s 383(1A) of Companies Act for Lack of Evidence and Negligence in Proceedings.

Court Criticizes Penalty u/s 383(1A) of Companies Act for Lack of Evidence and Negligence in Proceedings. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=54284 Penalty u/s 383(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - the company did not have a Whole-time secretary - non-application of mind - order passed only on the basis of a bare complaint without any supporting documents - It is not a case of inadvertence but rather sheer continued negligence which has caused serious failure and prejudice to the petitioners - The application of mind at the time of taking cognizance and framing of notice is sine qua non. - HC en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:08:56 +0530 Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:08:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator Court Criticizes Penalty u/s 383(1A) of Companies Act for Lack of Evidence and Negligence in Proceedings. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=54284 Penalty u/s 383(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - the company did not have a Whole-time secretary - non-application of mind - order passed only on the basis of a bare complaint without any supporting documents - It is not a case of inadvertence but rather sheer continued negligence which has caused serious failure and prejudice to the petitioners - The application of mind at the time of taking cognizance and framing of notice is sine qua non. - HC Highlights Companies Law Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:08:56 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=54284