Tag Archives: penalty

CCI penalty on beer companies


The Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) passed a final order against three beer companies, namely United Breweries Limited (‘UBL’), SABMiller India Limited (now renamed as Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. after being acquired by Anheuser Busch InBev SA/NV) (‘AB InBev’) and Carlsberg India Private Limited (‘CIPL’) for indulging in cartelisation in the sale and supply of beer in various States and Union Territories in India, including through the platform of All India Brewers’ Association (‘AIBA’).

As AIBA was found to be actively involved in facilitating such cartelisation, CCI also held AIBA to be in contravention of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’), apart from the beer companies. The period of cartel was held to be from 2009 to at least 10.10.2018 (the date on which the Director General (‘DG’) conducted search and seizure operations at the premises of the beer companies), with CIPL joining in from 2012 and AIBA serving as a platform for facilitating such cartelisation since 2013. All three beer companies were lesser penalty applicants before CCI.

Based on evidences of regular communications between the parties collected by the DG during search and seizure, and on the basis of the disclosures made in the lesser penalty applications, CCI found that the three companies engaged in price co-ordination in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, West Bengal, National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Puducherry, in collectively restricting supply of beer in the States of Maharashtra, Odisha and West Bengal in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act, and in sharing of market in the State of Maharashtra as well as co-ordination with respect to supply of beer to premium institutions in the city of Bengaluru in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(c) of the Act. CCI also found co-ordination amongst UBL and AB InBev with respect to purchase of second-hand bottles. Further, 4 individuals of UBL, 4 individuals of AB InBev, 6 individuals of CIPL and the Director General of AIBA, were held by CCI to be liable for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective companies/ association, in terms of Section 48 of the Act.

Giving benefit of reduction in penalty under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act of 100% to AB InBev and its individuals, 40% to UBL and its individuals and 20% to CIPL and its individuals. The CCI directed UBL and CIPL to pay penalties of approx. Rs 750 crore and Rs 120 crore respectively, besides passing a cease-and-desist order.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

tax compliances extended


The Central Government, in continuation of its commitment to address the hardship being faced by various stakeholders on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, has, on consideration of representations received from various stakeholders, decided to extend timelines for compliances under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the following cases, as under:

  • Time limit for intimation of Aadhaar number to the Income tax Department for linking of PAN with Aadhaar has been extended from 30th September, 2021 to 31st March, 2022.
  • The due date for completion of penalty proceedings under the Act has also been extended from 30th September, 2021 to 31st March, 2022.

Further, the time limit for issuance of notice and passing of order by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 has also been extended to 31st March, 2022.

Notification no. 113 of 2021 dated 17th September, 2021 has been issued in this regard and can be accessed at www.incometaxindia.gov.in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

RBI imposes penalty on IndusInd Bank


The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed, by an order dated October 16, 2020, a monetary penalty of ₹4.50 crore (Rupees Four crore and fifty lakh only) on IndusInd Bank Limited (the bank) for non-compliance with certain provisions of directions issued by RBI on ‘Exposure Norms’, ‘Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances’, ‘SPARC – Monitoring of Information Submission by bank’, ‘Creation of a Central Repository of Large Common Exposures – Across Banks’ read with directions on ‘Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC) – Revision in Reporting’, and ‘Disclosure in Financial Statements- Notes to Accounts’.

This penalty has been imposed in exercise of powers vested in RBI under the provisions of section 47 A (1) (c) read with section 46 (4) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (the Act). This action is based on the deficiencies in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers.


The statutory inspection of the bank with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2019 and the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) pertaining thereto revealed, inter-alia, non-compliance with the above-mentioned directions issued by RBI. In furtherance to the same, a notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for its failure to comply with the directions issued by RBI. After considering the bank’s reply to the notice, oral submissions made during the personal hearing and examination of additional submissions, RBI decided to impose monetary penalty on the bank, to the extent of non-compliance with the aforesaid directions.

Leave a comment

Filed under banking laws

Companies Act, 2013 – Table of Fees

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has published the Table of Fees pursuant to Rule 12 of the Companies (Registration of Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014. Accordingly, the fees payable for registration of documents at the MCA portal are as follows:

For company having nominal share capital

1) of upto Rs.100,000                                                            Rs.200/-

2) above Rs.1 lakh but less than Rs.5 lakhs                          Rs.300/-

3) Rs. 5 lakhs or more but less than Rs.25 lakhs                   Rs.400/-

4) Rs.25 lakhs or more but less than Rs.1 crore                    Rs.500/-

5) Rs.1 crore and above                                                        Rs.600/-

In case of delays in filing documents, the following would be applicable:

Delay of 

1) upto 15 days (in case of section 93, 139 & 157               ONE TIME

2) more than 15 days to 30 days ( in case of section 93, 

139 & 157) and upto 30 days in case of other forms           TWO TIMES of normal filing fee

3) More than 30 days and upto 60 days                              FOUR TIMES of normal filing fee

4) More than 60 days and upto 90 days                              SIX TIMES of normal filing fee

5) More than 90 days and upto 180 days                            TEN TIMES of normal filing fee

6) More than 180 days and upto 270 days                           TWELVE TIMES of normal filing fee

Where the documents were supposed to be filed under the old regime i.e. under the Companies Act, 1956 and are being filed now, the above filing fee schedule will become applicable. 

Where there is a delay in filing of more than 270 days then second proviso to section 403(1) will become applicable. 

The second proviso to section 403(1) and section 403(2) states as follows;

Provided further that any such document, fact or information may, without prejudice to any other legal action or liability under the Act, be also submitted, filed, registered or recorded, after the first time specified in first proviso on payment of fee and additional fee specified under this section.
(2) Where a company fails or commits any default to submit, file, register or record any document, fact or information under sub-section (1) before the expiry of the period specified in the first proviso to that sub-section with additional fee, the company and the officers of the company who are in default, shall, without prejudice to the liability for payment of fee and additional fee, be liable for the penalty or punishment provided under this Act for such failure or default.

What this means is that the document will be accepted for registration with maximum additional fees possible i.e. 12 times of the normal filing fee, but the company and the officers in default will also be liable for the penalty or punishment provided under the Act for such failure or default. 

So, effectively companies have been given leeway of upto 300 days i.e. 30 days normal filing period and 270 days additional filing period within which the documents to be filed failing which the prosecution will kick off and the company and officers are liable to receive show cause notices in this regard. 



1 Comment

Filed under company law