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.
The Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form AOC-4. The order held that filing defective statutory records constitutes a contravention despite subsequent rectification requests.
The First Appellate Authority held that details of the official who uploaded CIRP documents were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act due to absence of larger public interest.
ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized under Section 12(8) despite claims of temporary closure and health-related disruptions.
The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent filing mistakes in digitally signed forms can lead to penalties under Section 450.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that even inadvertent allotment of duplicate DIN attracts penalty under Section 159.
The ROC rejected the company’s defense that temporary reconstruction and business disputes justified the absence of staff and signboards. It held that statutory obligations under Section 12 remain mandatory at all times.
The adjudication order clarifies that incomplete filing of statutory resolutions on the MCA portal constitutes non-compliance. The company failed to rectify the defect despite notices and hearing opportunities.
ROC Mumbai-II imposed a penalty on a director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 XBRL filed for FY 2023-24. The authority held that authorised signatories are responsible for accuracy of e-form contents under Rule 8(3).
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a related party loan transaction in the Board’s Report and Form AOC-4. The authority held that omission of the transaction violated Section 134(3)(h) of the Companies Act.
