ROC Chandigarh penalized a company and its directors under Section 92(5) of the Companies Act for non-filing of annual returns from FY 2017-18 to 2022-23. The directors were each fined the maximum penalty permitted under the law.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that depreciation on building assets was not charged in the financial statements in violation of Accounting Standard-6. The authority held that failure to report the non-compliance affected the true and fair view of accounts.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that material investment disclosures required under Schedule III of the Companies Act were omitted from financial statements. The authority held that the auditor failed to report the company’s statutory non-compliance under Section 143.
ROC Kolkata penalised a private company and its directors for non-filing of annual returns under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The adjudicating authority held that continued default in statutory filings attracted monetary penalties under Section 92(5).
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for delayed transfer of unspent CSR funds to the Swachh Bharat Kosh. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 135(7) compliance timelines under the Companies Act.
ROC Cuttack imposed penalties for failure to print mandatory contact information on company letterheads under Section 12(3)(c). The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory disclosure requirements in official documents.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act after finding that official letterheads omitted mandatory details such as telephone number, email, and website address.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for not appointing a whole-time Chief Financial Officer despite paid-up capital exceeding the statutory threshold under the Companies Act.
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.
