ROC Mumbai held that even clerical mistakes in DIR-12 can attract penalty under Section 450 when incorrect information is certified in MCA filings. The ruling highlights the responsibility of authorized signatories to ensure accuracy of e-forms.
The issue involved alleged incomplete disclosure under RTI. The authority held that all available records were already shared and no further disclosure was required.
The case involved non-disclosure of overlapping interests between contractor and resolution applicant. The authority held that lack of transparency compromised the process and imposed a three-year suspension.
The ROC imposed penalties after a company extended its rights issue offer period following requests from promoter shareholders. The adjudication order clarified that the Companies Act restricts rights issue offers from remaining open for more than 30 days.
The appellate authority found that the company complied with private placement provisions by safeguarding funds in a separate account. The ROC’s penalty order was set aside. The decision highlights evidentiary verification as key in adjudication proceedings.
The issue involved alleged violation in handling share application money under company law. The ruling held that maintaining funds in a separate account ensured compliance, leading to penalty removal.
The issue involved alleged misuse of share application funds under company law provisions. The authority ruled that compliance was established through proper bank account usage, leading to penalty removal.
The issue involved providing paid stock tips and trading advice without SEBI registration. SEBI held such activities illegal and ordered refunds with penalties. The key takeaway is that unregistered advisory services attract strict regulatory action.
The Authority found that core survey functions were carried out by unlicensed personnel. It held that such outsourcing violated regulatory norms and warranted licence cancellation.
The regulator cancelled a surveyor’s licence after finding false records, mismatched filings, and inaccurate disclosures. The ruling highlights strict compliance expectations in maintaining survey data.
