ROC Mumbai held that once delay in appointing an Internal Auditor was compounded by the Regional Director and default rectified, no further penalty under Section 450 could be imposed.
Even though the form was auto-approved under STP mode, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty for inaccurate disclosure. Responsibility for correctness rests with the digital signatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties under Section 172 after a public company failed to fill a Woman Director vacancy within the prescribed three-month period, resulting in 18 days of non-compliance.
The Adjudicating Officer held that omission of a mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act. The plea of oversight was rejected, reinforcing strict compliance in statutory e-forms.
The appellate authority held that information can be disclosed only if it is held or controlled by the public authority. As the requested 1986 committee report was not available with the Board, the RTI appeal was disposed of.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to attach the mandatory valuation report in private placement filings violates Rule 12(7) and attracts penalty under Section 450. Oversight was not accepted as a valid defence.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to appoint the required two independent directors within the statutory timeline violates Section 149. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and its officers.
The IBBI First Appellate Authority held that information on admitted claims in a CIRP case was available online and need not be recompiled under RTI.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties for failure to appoint the mandatory two Independent Directors within the prescribed timeline under Section 149. The order clarifies that delayed compliance after conversion into a public company invites monetary penalty under Section 172.
In a case involving delayed filing of annual returns for FY 2013–14, the ROC declined to impose penalty under Section 454. The order clarified that pre-2018 defaults fall under the fine regime, not the penalty regime, leaving compounding as the appropriate remedy.
