Case if Directors not mentioned DIN below their signatures for MCA Documents as per Section 158

Case if Directors not mentioned DIN below their signatures for MCA Documents as per Section 158. In this article, we will take you through the mandatory Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every individual who is required to furnish any document, return, or application under this Act must mention his Director Identification Number (DIN), where applicable. This provision ensures transparency and accountability by linking directors to the documents they submit. The requirement helps in preventing fraudulent practices and strengthens corporate governance by making it easier to track and verify the authenticity of directors involved in company affairs.
Applicable Provisions
The case involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the MCA adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (ER), Kolkata, for consideration.
Facts of the Case with ROC and RD
In Calcutta South Club Limited, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice dated 04.11.2022 for violation of section 158 of the Act to the company and its officers. In this regard no reply was received by the ROC, west Bengal from the company and its officers for the aforesaid adjudication notice.
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 30/08/2024.

The authorised representative was asked to make submissions regarding the infirmity if any in the order of Registrar of Companies.

The authorised representative had no valid submissions in this regard. Hence, the order of ROC is confirmed as no cogent ground was made out by the authorised representative.

Imposed Penalty
Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty for violation of section 173 of the companies Act 2013, as under: -

On Company: Rs. 50,000 (For 1 year)

On 3 directors: Rs. 50,000 each (For 1 years)

Reduction in Penalty
As authorised representative had no valid submission with respect to the default in section 158 of the companies Act 2013. Thus, RD confirm the order of ROC.  Further RD directed the company and officers in default shall pay the amount of penalty from out of their own pockets. The amount of penalty shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order., if the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit under section 454 (8) (i) and (ii) of the companies Act 2013.
Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act
Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed on OPC shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In this adjudication matter of Calcutta South Club Limited company does not fall under the criteria of a small company thus cannot claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
Findings: -
In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director and confirm the order of ROC. This adjudication order demonstrates that how important it is to present appeal and submission in the proper way. This order also highlights that the company needs to be compliant with each and every section and provision of the companies Act 2013.
Download MCA Adjudication Order

In this article, we will take you through the mandatory Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every individual who is required to furnish any document, return, or application under this Act must mention his Director Identification Number (DIN), where applicable. This provision ensures transparency and accountability by linking directors to the documents they submit. The requirement helps in preventing fraudulent practices and strengthens corporate governance by making it easier to track and verify the authenticity of directors involved in company affairs.

Applicable Provisions

The case involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the MCA adjudication of penalties. The relevant rules include the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (ER), Kolkata, for consideration.

Facts of the Case with ROC and RD

In Calcutta South Club Limited, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice dated 04.11.2022 for violation of section 158 of the Act to the company and its officers. In this regard no reply was received by the ROC, west Bengal from the company and its officers for the aforesaid adjudication notice.

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) imposed penalties for non-compliance, leading the company to file an appeal before the Regional Director (RD) and an opportunity of being heard was given by the RD to appellants on 30/08/2024.

The authorised representative was asked to make submissions regarding the infirmity if any in the order of Registrar of Companies.
The authorised representative had no valid submissions in this regard. Hence, the order of ROC is confirmed as no cogent ground was made out by the authorised representative.

Imposed Penalty

Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty for violation of section 173 of the companies Act 2013, as under: -

On Company: Rs. 50,000 (For 1 year)
On 3 directors: Rs. 50,000 each (For 1 years)

Reduction in Penalty

As authorised representative had no valid submission with respect to the default in section 158 of the companies Act 2013. Thus, RD confirm the order of ROC. Further RD directed the company and officers in default shall pay the amount of penalty from out of their own pockets. The amount of penalty shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order., if the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit under section 454 (8) (i) and (ii) of the companies Act 2013.

Any Benefit of Section 446B of Companies Act

Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a significant relief mechanism for small companies and start-ups by reducing the penalty burden for certain non-compliances. Under this provision, if a small company or a start-up commits a default for which a penalty is prescribed under the Act, the penalty imposed on OPC shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In this adjudication matter of Calcutta South Club Limited company does not fall under the criteria of a small company thus cannot claim the benefit of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

Findings: -

In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director and confirm the order of ROC. This adjudication order demonstrates that how important it is to present appeal and submission in the proper way. This order also highlights that the company needs to be compliant with each and every section and provision of the companies Act 2013.