ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of Form MGT-14 under Section 117 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority granted reduced penalties after recognizing the company as a start-up eligible for Section 446B benefits.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement issue related to one integrated transaction and did not warrant multiple penalties. The authority accepted the company’s contention that Section 42(10) does not contemplate separate penalties for each procedural deviation.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction and did not justify multiple penalties. No penalty was imposed under Section 42(10) of the Companies Act.
ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under Section 117(1). Reduced penalties were granted after extending the benefit of Section 446B applicable to small companies and start-ups.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that delay in filing return of allotment attracts separate penalty under Section 42(9).
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that such utilization violated the proviso to Section 42(4) of the Companies Act.
The order highlights that delayed applications, late progress reports, and non-compliance with filing requirements amounted to serious procedural lapses. IBBI emphasized strict adherence to timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highlights that even inadvertent duplicate DIN allotment can attract continuing penalties.
ROC Delhi held that failure to regularize an Additional Director at the next AGM violated Section 161(1) of the Companies Act. Since the default continued for 2,721 days, maximum penalties were imposed on the company and directors.
The ROC found that the company failed to timely record cessation of an Additional Director whose office had automatically vacated by law. Delayed filing of DIR-12 resulted in severe penalties under Section 172.
