The issue was whether disciplinary action against an Insolvency Professional could proceed solely on the basis of pending criminal and regulatory proceedings. The IBBI held that definitive findings would be premature until the competent forums adjudicated the underlying allegations.
The First Appellate Authority found that the appellant had indeed paid Rs. 2,500 to the IBBI despite the CPIO stating otherwise. The Board was directed to refund the amount in accordance with applicable grievance regulations.
The IBBI held that while information available with a public authority can be accessed under the RTI Act, the CPIO is not required to collate or present it in a format preferred by the applicant. Publicly available information need not be recompiled for RTI purposes.
The IBBI appellate authority held that information not maintained by the Board cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. The ruling reiterates that public authorities are only required to provide records actually held by them.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the rejection of an RTI request seeking an IBBI reference related to avoidance transactions. It held that disclosure would reveal confidential financial and commercial information protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are responsible for ensuring accuracy in statutory MCA filings, even where mistakes are inadvertent.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The order reiterates that directors cannot apply for or retain multiple DINs, irrespective of intent.
ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates that authorized signatories are accountable for the accuracy of MCA filings, even when errors are inadvertent.
The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in physical form without ISIN registration, resulting in substantial penalties.
The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period of default. Penalties remain payable for the duration of the continuing contravention.
