ROC Delhi penalised a company and its officers for three separate compliance failures linked to a private placement of shares. The order highlights that errors in disclosures, e-forms, and attachments can attract penalties under Section 450.
ROC Cuttack held that responsibility for inaccurate information in e-forms rests with the authorised signatory and certifying professional under Rule 8(3). The company itself escaped penalty in the circumstances of the case.
The First Appellate Authority noted that the CPIO exceeded the statutory RTI timeline by one day. However, since the requested closure letter had been furnished, no further action was considered necessary.
The IBBI held that prolonged failure to hold SCC meetings, delayed progress reporting, and repeated absence before the Adjudicating Authority amounted to serious professional misconduct. The order underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory duties under the insolvency framework.
ROC Delhi held that delay in issuing share certificates to subscribers violated Section 56(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The company and its officers were penalised despite subsequently rectifying the default.
IBBI held that an Insolvency Professional cannot delay constitution of the Committee of Creditors based on settlement discussions or creditor reluctance. Failure to follow mandatory CIRP timelines resulted in a three-year suspension.
SEBIs investigation found that a substantial portion of reported consolidated revenues was unsupported by verifiable subsidiary records. The interim order records a prima facie finding that the absence of underlying financial data and documentation raised concerns about the accuracy of disclosures.
IBBI imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty after finding that an insolvency professional accepted and continued an assignment despite suspension of his Authorisation for Assignment. The ruling underscores that valid AFA is mandatory for undertaking insolvency assignments.
ROC Pune held that possession of more than one Director Identification Number constitutes a violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the absence of mala fide intent, penalty under Section 159 was imposed for the default.
ROC held that circulating the private placement offer letter before filing Form MGT-14 violated Section 42(3) and Rule 14(8). The case underscores the importance of completing prerequisite filings before initiating private placement offers.
