The ROC imposed penalties after finding that mandatory Board Meetings were not held since incorporation. The key takeaway is that holding and documenting Board Meetings is a strict statutory obligation.
The regulator cancelled registration after the valuer ceased to be a member of a Registered Valuers Organisation. The key takeaway is that RVO membership is a continuing and non-negotiable condition for practice.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties for a continuing failure to file statutory financial statements for FY 2020–21. The order reiterates that prolonged defaults attract monetary consequences and require mandatory rectification.
Authorities imposed statutory penalties after a company admitted failure to disclose reasons for unspent CSR amounts in its Board’s Report, holding the lapse actionable under the Companies Act.
It was ruled that failure to properly collate and maintain the register of members constitutes a clear default attracting penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
The ROC imposed penalties for late filing of AOC-4 beyond the statutory timeline. The key takeaway is that timely filing of financial statements is mandatory, irrespective of financial difficulties.
The adjudicating authority held that not displaying the company name and statutory particulars at the registered office constitutes a clear breach of Section 12. Procedural lapses were not accepted as a defence, and monetary penalties were upheld.
Authorities held that non-maintenance of a consolidated register of members at the registered office violates Section 88, justifying monetary penalties on the company and its officers.
The Registrar of Companies imposed penalties for non-filing of AOC-4 for two consecutive financial years. The key takeaway is that financial difficulty is not a valid defence for statutory filing defaults.
The adjudicating authority held that non-filing of Form AOC-4 for consecutive years violates Section 137 of the Companies Act. Financial difficulty was rejected as a valid defence, and penalties were upheld against both the company and its officers.
