Failure to Mention DIN of Directors as per Section 158: MCA Imposes Penalty

Failure to Mention DIN of Directors as per Section 158: MCA Imposes Penalty. Yes, if a company and its directors fail to mention the Director Identification Number (DIN) on required documents, both the company and the directors can be penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every individual who is required to furnish any document, application, or return under this Act must mention their Director Identification Number (DIN) if they are a director. This provision ensures transparency and accountability by linking the individual’s identity to their official filings, thereby preventing fraud and misrepresentation. The section reinforces the importance of DIN as a unique identifier for directors and aligns with regulatory compliance to maintain accurate records. Non-compliance with this requirement may result in legal consequences as prescribed under the Act.
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 Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice for violation of section 158 of the companies Act dated 01.05.2023 to the company and its officers. In this regard, no adequate reply to the adjudication notice have been received from the notice(s) i.e. company and is concerned officers in default as to why penalty shall not be imposed.
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, 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 05/07/2024.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 appellant.
Imposed Penalty
Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on companies and officers in default as follows:

Violation of Section
Period of default
To whom penalty imposed
Maximum Penalty

Section 158 of the companies Act 2013
3 Years (50,000*3)
On Company
1,50,000

2 Years (50,000*2)
On 1st director
1,00,000

2 Years (50,000*2)
On 2nd director
1,00,000

1 Year 
On 3rd director
50,000

Confirming ROC Order
The appeal was heard on 21/12/2023 Authorised Representative was asked to make submissions regarding any infirmity in order of ROC. 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. 
Further RD directed that the amount shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date pf receipt of the copy of the order. In the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit action under section 454 (8)(i) and (ii) of the companies Act 2013 shall be initiated against the company and its directors. 
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 shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In adjudication matter of Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited company does not fall under the criteria of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
Our Findings:
In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director and considering all the fact and circumstances RD confirm the order of ROC as RD did not get any cogent ground. 
This demonstrates that company initially should be complaint in each and every term and in case of appeal to the RD it became very significant to make valid points to mitigate the penalty.
Download MCA Adjudication Order:

Yes, if a company and its directors fail to mention the Director Identification Number (DIN) on required documents, both the company and the directors can be penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

Section 158 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that every individual who is required to furnish any document, application, or return under this Act must mention their Director Identification Number (DIN) if they are a director. This provision ensures transparency and accountability by linking the individual’s identity to their official filings, thereby preventing fraud and misrepresentation. The section reinforces the importance of DIN as a unique identifier for directors and aligns with regulatory compliance to maintain accurate records. Non-compliance with this requirement may result in legal consequences as prescribed under the Act.

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 Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited, concerned ROC had issued adjudication notice for violation of section 158 of the companies Act dated 01.05.2023 to the company and its officers. In this regard, no adequate reply to the adjudication notice have been received from the notice(s) i.e. company and is concerned officers in default as to why penalty shall not be imposed.

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, 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 05/07/2024.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 appellant.

Imposed Penalty

Considering all the facts, circumstances and all the submission made by the company, the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on companies and officers in default as follows:

Violation of Section	Period of default	To whom penalty imposed	Maximum Penalty
Section 158 of the companies Act 2013	3 Years (50,000*3)	On Company	1,50,000
	2 Years (50,000*2)	On 1st director	1,00,000
	2 Years (50,000*2)	On 2nd director	1,00,000
	1 Year	On 3rd director	50,000

Confirming ROC Order

The appeal was heard on 21/12/2023 Authorised Representative was asked to make submissions regarding any infirmity in order of ROC. 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.

Further RD directed that the amount shall be paid within a period of 90 days from the date pf receipt of the copy of the order. In the company and its directors fail to deposit the penalty amount within the prescribed time limit action under section 454 (8)(i) and (ii) of the companies Act 2013 shall be initiated against the company and its directors.

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 shall not be more than half of the specified penalty, subject to a maximum limit. In adjudication matter of Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Private Limited company does not fall under the criteria of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

Our Findings:

In conclusion, the appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, was carefully examined by the Regional Director and considering all the fact and circumstances RD confirm the order of ROC as RD did not get any cogent ground.

This demonstrates that company initially should be complaint in each and every term and in case of appeal to the RD it became very significant to make valid points to mitigate the penalty.