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.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of a registered valuer’s report in PAS-3 filings attracts penalty under section 39(5). Voluntary disclosure does not eliminate statutory liability.
The authority held that inability to produce Board and AGM minutes constitutes non-compliance despite historical flood damage. Fixed penalties were upheld as mandatory under the Act.
The Registrar of Companies, Kolkata passed an adjudication order under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, imposing penalties for violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 read with Section 450 of the Act. The case arose from the filing of an e-Form MGT-7A containing incorrect particulars, where the […]
