Non mentioning of DIN of Directors in documents filed with the MCA may attract significant penalty

Non mentioning of DIN of Directors in documents filed with the MCA may attract significant penalty. In this MCA Adjudication order, company along with its directors has violated the provisions of section 158 of the companies Act 2013. 
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. 
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 Maheep Marketing Private Limited, concerned ROC had issued notice for violation of section 158 of the companies Act dated 30.01.2023 to the company and its officers. In this regard a reply dated 03/05/2023 was received by the ROC, from the company and its officers for aforesaid adjudication notice which was not found satisfactory by the adjudicating authority.
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 22/02/2024.The authorised representative had no 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 on companies and officers in default as follows:

Violation of Section
To whom penalty imposed

Maximum Penalty

Section 137 of the companies Act 2013
On Company
50,000

On 1 director
50,000

On 1 director

50,000

Reduction in Penalty
The appeal was heard on 22/02/2024 Authorised Representative was asked to make submissions regarding any infirmity in order of ROC. The Authorised Representative had no 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 Maheep Marketing Private Limited company does not fall under the criteria of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.
Observations:
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:

In this MCA Adjudication order, company along with its directors has violated the provisions of section 158 of the companies Act 2013.

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.

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 Maheep Marketing Private Limited, concerned ROC had issued notice for violation of section 158 of the companies Act dated 30.01.2023 to the company and its officers. In this regard a reply dated 03/05/2023 was received by the ROC, from the company and its officers for aforesaid adjudication notice which was not found satisfactory by the adjudicating authority.

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 22/02/2024.The authorised representative had no 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 on companies and officers in default as follows:

Violation of Section	To whom penalty imposed	Maximum Penalty
Section 137 of the companies Act 2013	On Company	50,000
	On 1 director	50,000
	On 1 director	50,000

Reduction in Penalty

The appeal was heard on 22/02/2024 Authorised Representative was asked to make submissions regarding any infirmity in order of ROC. The Authorised Representative had no 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 Maheep Marketing Private Limited company does not fall under the criteria of section 446B of the companies Act 2013.

Observations:

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.