The dispute focused on the statutory requirement of active RVO membership for registered valuers. The Authority reaffirmed that non-compliance with RVO bye-laws and expulsion result in immediate loss of registration rights.
The authority held that non-filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts attracts penalty under section 117(2). Continued default led to penalties on both company and directors.
The authority held that failure to file DIR-3 KYC violates Rule 12A and attracts penalty under section 450. DIN deactivation does not absolve ongoing compliance responsibility.
The authority held that wrong disclosure of AGM details in Form MGT-7 attracts penalty under section 450. Accuracy in e-filings is the responsibility of the signatory.
The adjudicating authority held that filing AOC-4 after prolonged delay attracts penalty despite eventual compliance. Rectification beyond statutory timelines does not grant immunity.
Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were held insufficient without corroborative evidence. The Board stressed admissibility and evidentiary standards. The ruling protects professionals from weak evidentiary claims.
The authority held that non-filing of the annual return for FY 2023–24 attracts penalty under section 92(5). Continued default led to penalties on both the company and directors.
The authority held that late filing of PAS-6 violates Rule 9A(8) and attracts penalty under section 450. Subsequent compliance does not erase earlier default.
Failure to file PAS-6 within time attracted penalties under section 450 despite subsequent compliance. Timely half-yearly reporting of share capital remains mandatory.
The adjudicating authority clarified that belated compliance after a show cause notice cannot nullify statutory violations. Penalties were upheld despite later rectification.
