Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
ROC Patna has imposed penalties under Section 92(5) following a company's failure to file its annual return for FY 2019-20, highlighting the accountability of directors.
ROC has ordered penalties against a company and its managing director for ongoing non-filing of the mandatory annual return, reflecting strict adherence to Section 92(4) of the Companies Act.
ROC Haryana has ruled that failure to transfer an unspent CSR amount within six months is a violation, triggering substantial penalty proceedings amounting to over Rs. 37 lakh.
ROC Pune penalized a company for using private placement funds prior to filing Form PAS-3, highlighting non-compliance with the Companies Act's provisions regarding the timing of fund utilization.
ROC Pune has penalized a company for a 46-day delay in submitting e-Form PAS-3, emphasizing strict compliance with the filing timelines under Section 42 of the Companies Act.
ROC Pune ruled that procedural violations related to a private placement involving a single investor do not warrant multiple penalties, affirming the status of the transaction as one integrated event under Section 42 of the Companies Act.
The government has unveiled new Labour and Industrial Codes 2026 accompanied by updated central rules, prompting startups to evaluate their tax regime choices carefully.
The NCLT clarified that outstanding obligations related to an ongoing One-Time Settlement (OTS) cannot impede the admission of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The NCLT ruled that a financial creditor cannot be compelled to wait for a One-Time Settlement (OTS) when both debt and default are acknowledged, permitting the admission of a CIRP.
The NCLT ruled that without statutory determination under the EPF Act, the EPFO cannot lodge PF claims in insolvency proceedings. This ruling upholds procedural integrity in CIRP.
The NCLT ruled that a Recovery Certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) revives the limitation period, allowing a ₹17.54 crore insolvency plea against Sunbeam Dealers.
The NCLAT ruled that a mortgage of property without actual fund disbursal does not qualify as financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), reinforcing the necessity of actual fund flows.