ROC Chennai held that delayed filing of Form MGT-14 for Board resolutions approving accounts constituted non-compliance under Section 117(1). Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and officers in default.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its directors for non-filing of Form MGT-7 for FY 2022-23, holding the default violated Section 92(4) of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that the company remained in continuous default for several years after becoming legally required to appoint a Company Secretary. The order emphasizes strict enforcement of corporate governance obligations relating to key managerial personnel appointments.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after it failed to appoint mandatory independent directors despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance under Section 149(4) attracted maximum penalty under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after special resolutions relating to preferential allotment were filed years beyond the statutory deadline. The authority held that repeated delays under Section 117 attracted maximum penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC Mumbai penalized an individual for possessing two Director Identification Numbers contrary to Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling highlights that obtaining duplicate DINs, even inadvertently, can attract continuing penalties under Section 159.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a director for filing incorrect AGM and due dates in Form AOC-4 for FY 2024-25. The ruling highlights that authorized signatories are personally responsible for accuracy of information filed in MCA e-forms.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its Managing Director for omitting the mandatory web link of the annual return in the Board Report for FY 2019-20. The ruling highlights that even seemingly minor disclosure lapses under Section 92(3) can attract penalties under Section 450.
The ROC Mumbai penalized a company and its Managing Director for failing to include mandatory disclosures in the Board Report for FY 2019-20. The ruling highlights that omissions relating to annual return details, cost records, and secretarial standards can attract penalties under Section 134(8).
ROC Goa imposed penalties after finding violations of AS-09 and AS-15 reflected in the auditor’s report for FY 2021-22. The order held that failure to ensure proper compliance in the Directors’ Responsibility Statement attracted independent liability under Section 134(5A).
