ROC held that starting business operations before filing the mandatory declaration under Section 10A violated the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 179-day delay in compliance.
ROC Kolkata held that filing Form AOC-4 XBRL with an incorrect AGM date amounted to a contravention of Rule 8(3). The order clarifies that certifying signatories are responsible for the accuracy of statutory e-forms and attachments.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its officers for three separate compliance failures linked to a private placement of shares. The order highlights that errors in disclosures, e-forms, and attachments can attract penalties under Section 450.
ROC Kolkata held that mentioning an incorrect AGM due date in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite admitting the mistake as inadvertent.
ROC Pune held that possession of more than one Director Identification Number constitutes a violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the absence of mala fide intent, penalty under Section 159 was imposed for the default.
ROC Kolkata held that incorrect disclosure of AGM and AGM due dates in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite describing the error as a clerical mistake.
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.
