Rejection of Appeal U/s 454 (Adjudication of penalties) of the companies Act 2013

Rejection of Appeal U/s 454 (Adjudication of penalties) of the companies Act 2013. In this article we will take you through the Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates the appointment of Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) in certain classes of companies to ensure effective corporate governance and accountability. It specifies that every listed company and other prescribed classes of companies must appoint a Managing Director (MD) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Manager, a Company Secretary, and a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). These individuals play a crucial role in the management and administration of the company. The section also lays down conditions regarding their appointment, including restrictions on holding multiple positions in different companies and the procedure for filling vacancies. Non-compliance with this provision attracts penalties for both the company and its officers.
Applicable Provisions 
The case involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the MCA adjudication of penalties for defaulting in filling of its annual return for the Financial Year 2018-19. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (ER), Kolkata, for consideration.
Facts of the Case with ROC and RD
In the adjudication order of Ambika Shipping & Industries Limited ROC, west Bengal has passed the adjudication order on 05/12/2022 for violation of the provisions of section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The appellant company filed an appeal and appeal was heard on 19/08/2024. The appellant authority is of the opinion that the present appeal has been filed after the period allowed for filing of appeal as prescribed under section 454 (6) of the companies Act 2013. 
In the view of the above, this appeal gets dismissed on limitation ground under section 454(6) of the companies Act 2013 without going into the merit of the case. 
Our Observation:
This case highlights the mandatory nature of the time limit prescribed under Section 454(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The dismissal of the appeal purely on limitation grounds highlights the strict compliance with respect to statutory deadlines, reinforcing the importance of timely compliance. This serves as a significant reminder for companies to diligently track and adhere to regulatory timelines to avoid adverse legal consequences. Thus, companies must exercise due diligence in filing appeals within the prescribed time frame to safeguard their legal rights and avoid unnecessary penalties.
Download MCA Adjudication Order:

In this article we will take you through the Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates the appointment of Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) in certain classes of companies to ensure effective corporate governance and accountability. It specifies that every listed company and other prescribed classes of companies must appoint a Managing Director (MD) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Manager, a Company Secretary, and a Chief Financial Officer (CFO). These individuals play a crucial role in the management and administration of the company. The section also lays down conditions regarding their appointment, including restrictions on holding multiple positions in different companies and the procedure for filling vacancies. Non-compliance with this provision attracts penalties for both the company and its officers.

Applicable Provisions

The case involves an appeal under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the MCA adjudication of penalties for defaulting in filling of its annual return for the Financial Year 2018-19. The matter was brought before the Regional Director (ER), Kolkata, for consideration.

Facts of the Case with ROC and RD

In the adjudication order of Ambika Shipping & Industries Limited ROC, west Bengal has passed the adjudication order on 05/12/2022 for violation of the provisions of section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The appellant company filed an appeal and appeal was heard on 19/08/2024. The appellant authority is of the opinion that the present appeal has been filed after the period allowed for filing of appeal as prescribed under section 454 (6) of the companies Act 2013.

In the view of the above, this appeal gets dismissed on limitation ground under section 454(6) of the companies Act 2013 without going into the merit of the case.

Our Observation:

This case highlights the mandatory nature of the time limit prescribed under Section 454(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The dismissal of the appeal purely on limitation grounds highlights the strict compliance with respect to statutory deadlines, reinforcing the importance of timely compliance. This serves as a significant reminder for companies to diligently track and adhere to regulatory timelines to avoid adverse legal consequences. Thus, companies must exercise due diligence in filing appeals within the prescribed time frame to safeguard their legal rights and avoid unnecessary penalties.