The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory internal auditor appointment requirements. The authority imposed penalties as the company exceeded the turnover threshold but failed to comply. The takeaway is that audit requirements are strictly enforced.
The ROC imposed penalties on directors for not maintaining the mandatory register of members. The key takeaway is that statutory registers must be maintained at all times. Non-compliance attracts fixed penalties.
The case addresses non-disclosure of directors’ interests in related entities. Authorities imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 184 disclosure requirements.
The authority penalized directors for entering into non-cash transactions without prior approval through a special resolution. It reinforces that shareholder consent is mandatory for such arrangements under Section 192.
The authority penalized the company for submitting incomplete and inconsistent member data under Rule 14(6). It held that technical issues or pending approvals do not justify defective statutory disclosures, reinforcing strict compliance standards.
The authority penalized the company for failing to file return of allotment under Section 39(4), rejecting the argument of MCA portal issues. The key takeaway is that technical difficulties do not excuse statutory non-compliance.
The authority imposed penalty for failure to file SH-7 after increasing authorised capital. The key takeaway is that statutory filings cannot be skipped even due to technical issues.
The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled that agreements for such spaces are invalid and cannot confer membership rights, restoring the earlier rejection order.
Failure to file financial statements and respond to notices resulted in an ex-parte penalty order. The case highlights strict enforcement of compliance and consequences of non-appearance before authorities.
Company failed to respond to show cause and hearing notices issued by the ROC. The authority proceeded ex-parte and imposed penalties. The ruling highlights that non-participation does not prevent enforcement action.
