ROC Ahmedabad imposed penalties after finding prolonged non-compliance with mandatory Independent Director requirements. The ruling underscores that delay in board composition compliance attracts adjudication under Section 454.
The ROC Mumbai imposed a ₹10,000 penalty under Section 450 after an incorrect AGM date was mentioned in Form AOC-4. The order clarifies that authorized signatories are liable for inaccuracies in digitally signed e-forms, even if errors are inadvertent.
A mismatch in paid-up capital disclosure in the annual return led to penalty proceedings under Section 454. The decision emphasizes that compliance failures in MCA filings, even if unintentional, invite statutory penalties.
A company was penalized for incorrectly selecting its OPC/Small Company status in Form AOC-4. The adjudicating authority clarified that MCA records are statutory public documents and inaccuracies attract liability despite claims of clerical error. Rectification does not nullify the offence.
ROC Pune imposed a penalty after a typographical error led to incorrect AGM details in Form MGT-7A. Although the AGM was duly held, incorrect filing attracted liability under Section 450. The director was fined ₹5,000 considering the company’s small status.
The adjudicating officer found that holding multiple DINs contravened Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the director’s claim of inadvertence and voluntary surrender, a reduced penalty of 50% of the maximum was levied.
The Disciplinary Committee held that the IRP accepted assignment and issued a public announcement without holding a valid Authorisation for Assignment. A six-month suspension was imposed, with mitigating factors noted.
The ROC Chhattisgarh held that repeated return of official letters marked Not Known proved non-compliance with Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalised under Section 12(8) for failing to maintain a functional registered office.
The Registrar penalized the officer in default for failing to appoint the required number of independent directors within the prescribed timeline. The default continued until proper appointments were made.
The order held that signing financial statements during disqualification violated Section 134(1). The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 134(8), even for small companies.
