The ROC held that filing Form PAS-6 after the statutory deadline does not erase the period of default. The company and its directors remained liable for penalties until the date compliance was actually achieved.
The adjudicating authority held that filing Form PAS-6 after the due date does not wipe out the period of default. Maximum penalties were imposed on the company and its directors for prolonged non-compliance.
ROC Bangalore found a violation of Section 12 after a statutory notice could not be served at the companys registered office. The company and its directors admitted the default and accepted the penalties.
Penalties were imposed not only on the company but also on its officers in default for delayed filing of the return of allotment. The ruling emphasizes directors’ responsibility in ensuring adherence to corporate compliance requirements.
ROC Bangalore held that converting loans into equity without obtaining prior approval under Section 62(3) violates the Companies Act. Such transactions must comply with the appropriate share issuance provisions.
The order arose from the allotment of shares against loans received from shareholders and directors without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Section 62(3). The ruling reiterates that post-facto adjustments cannot substitute mandatory corporate approvals.
The ROC Bangalore penalised a company and its directors after finding that the next Board Meeting was convened 87 days beyond the statutory limit under Section 173(1). The company had voluntarily admitted the default through a suo motu application.
ROC held that failure to file Form PAS-3 within 15 days of share allotment violated Section 42(8) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 61-day delay in compliance.
ROC held that starting business operations before filing the mandatory declaration under Section 10A violated the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized for the 179-day delay in compliance.
The IBBI imposed a two-year suspension after finding that the insolvency professional failed to disclose a financial transaction involving an entity linked to a prospective resolution applicant during the CIRP.
