ROC Delhi held that delay in issuing share certificates to subscribers violated Section 56(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The company and its officers were penalised despite subsequently rectifying the default.
ROC held that circulating the private placement offer letter before filing Form MGT-14 violated Section 42(3) and Rule 14(8). The case underscores the importance of completing prerequisite filings before initiating private placement offers.
ROC Cuttack held that responsibility for inaccurate information in e-forms rests with the authorised signatory and certifying professional under Rule 8(3). The company itself escaped penalty in the circumstances of the case.
ROC Bangalore found a violation of Section 12 after a statutory notice could not be served at the companys registered office. The company and its directors admitted the default and accepted the penalties.
Penalties were imposed not only on the company but also on its officers in default for delayed filing of the return of allotment. The ruling emphasizes directors’ responsibility in ensuring adherence to corporate compliance requirements.
ROC Bangalore held that converting loans into equity without obtaining prior approval under Section 62(3) violates the Companies Act. Such transactions must comply with the appropriate share issuance provisions.
The order arose from the allotment of shares against loans received from shareholders and directors without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Section 62(3). The ruling reiterates that post-facto adjustments cannot substitute mandatory corporate approvals.
ICSI has mandated advance online registration for eligible members attending the Southern Region Convocation. The notification emphasizes that no on-the-spot registration facility will be available.
The ROC Kolkata held that possessing more than one Director Identification Number violates Section 155 of the Companies Act, attracting penalties under Section 159. Directors must ensure that only one valid DIN is maintained at all times.
The ROC Bangalore penalised a company and its directors after finding that the next Board Meeting was convened 87 days beyond the statutory limit under Section 173(1). The company had voluntarily admitted the default through a suo motu application.
