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.
The Registrar held that delayed filing of financial statements for FY 2013–14 occurred before decriminalisation and falls under the fine regime. Adjudication under Section 454 was declined, with liberty to seek compounding.
The Registrar of Companies penalised the company and its directors for non-compliance with Section 12 after official communication was returned undelivered. The violation was treated as a one-time offence under Section 12(8).
The adjudicating authority held that filing an e-Form with incorrect particulars attracts penalty under Section 450. Administrative rectification does not wipe out the completed contravention.
