The company failed to form mandatory board committees for over four years. The authority held that each non-compliance attracts separate penalties.
The case involved incorrect filing of director designation in statutory records. The authority held that prolonged failure to rectify the error constituted a continuing default, attracting maximum penalty.
The case involved failure to file mandatory Form MR-1 for appointment of a Whole-Time Director. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance constituted a continuing default and imposed maximum penalties under Section 450.
The company delayed appointment of independent directors despite crossing the threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts maximum penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue involved non-compliance with statutory requirements for maintaining board meeting minutes. The authority held that procedural lapses still attract penalties under Section 118.
The authority dropped penalty proceedings after finding that the company had already shifted its registered office and the error was unintentional. Timely compliance and lack of mala fide intent proved crucial.
ROC imposed penalty due to non-conduct of mandatory board meetings during FY 2019–20. The ruling confirms strict compliance requirements under Section 173 of the Companies Act.
The authority held that accepting a plan from a non-listed applicant violated Regulation 39. The breach led to disciplinary action and suspension for three years
The appellate authority held that RTI applications cannot seek interpretations or clarifications on legal issues like treatment of flats in CIRP. Only existing records held by authorities can be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The issue concerns delayed response to an RTI application beyond the prescribed period. It was held that authorities must adhere to timelines and ensure timely disposal of information requests.
