The ROC Haryana held that failure to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a special resolution for issuance of CCDs constitutes a violation under Section 117(2). Companies must adhere to statutory timelines even when the default is subsequently rectified.
ROC Haryana held that mentioning an incorrect purpose in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. However, the penalty was reduced due to the company’s Small Company and Start-up status.
Although the show cause notice referred to the maximum penalty applicable for continuing contraventions, the adjudicating officer treated the lapse as a one-time offence. This resulted in a lower penalty under the Companies Act framework.
The ROC Haryana held that incorrectly stating the purpose of filing in e-Form MGT-14 constitutes a violation under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act. Companies must ensure accuracy in MCA filings, as inadvertent mistakes can still result in penalties.
ROC held that omission of prescribed disclosures in the explanatory statement for a CCD issuance violated Section 62(1)(c) and Rule 13(2)(d). The company and its officers were penalized under Section 450 after admitting the default.
The IBBI imposed a two-year suspension after finding that the Insolvency Professional misrepresented before the adjudicating authority that no Committee of Creditors existed. The ruling highlights that concealment of material facts and bypassing Section 12A requirements attract serious disciplinary consequences.
ROC Kolkata held that filing Form AOC-4 XBRL with an incorrect AGM date amounted to a contravention of Rule 8(3). The order clarifies that certifying signatories are responsible for the accuracy of statutory e-forms and attachments.
ROC Kolkata held that mentioning an incorrect AGM due date in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite admitting the mistake as inadvertent.
ROC Kolkata held that incorrect disclosure of AGM and AGM due dates in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite describing the error as a clerical mistake.
The ROC Kolkata held that possessing more than one Director Identification Number violates Section 155 of the Companies Act, attracting penalties under Section 159. Directors must ensure that only one valid DIN is maintained at all times.
