The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
The authority held that not consecutively numbering minutes books violates section 118(1) of the Companies Act. Even procedural lapses in corporate records can lead to fixed penalties on both the company and directors.
ROC held that non-appointment of a small shareholders’ director violates Section 151. The company and its directors were penalised at the statutory maximum under Section 172 for prolonged default.
The order reinforces that persistent non-filing of financial statements invites severe monetary consequences for both companies and directors.
ROC imposed the highest permissible penalty after finding prolonged failure to file AOC-4. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of Section 137(3) and personal accountability of directors.
The authority held that non-filing of financial statements under section 137 attracts strict penalties. Prolonged default justified imposition of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
The ruling reiterates that prolonged filing defaults invite monetary penalties on both the company and officers in default.
ROC held that failure to file financial statements for consecutive years violates Section 137, warranting statutory penalties on both the company and its directors.
An inspection under section 206(5) confirmed long-standing filing failures, resulting in statutory penalties on the company and officers in default.
The adjudicating authority held that exceeding the ₹100 crore borrowing threshold makes secretarial audit compulsory. Failure to appoint a Secretarial Auditor attracts fixed penalties under the Companies Act.
