ROC-Hyderabad Adjudication Order u/s 454 for violation of Sec. 203 Shree Gowthamee Rice Industries Pvt Ltd

ROC-Hyderabad Adjudication Order u/s 454 for violation of Sec. 203 Shree Gowthamee Rice Industries Pvt Ltd. In this article, we will take you through the mandatory provisions under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013. According to this section, every company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed shall have the following whole-time key managerial personnel- 
(i) Managing director, or Chief Executive Officer or manager and in their absence, a whole-time director; 
(ii) Company secretary; and 
(iii) Chief Financial Officer 
Failure to comply with these requirements may result in penalties for both the company and the officers in default, as specified under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, it is essential to adhere to these provisions to avoid any legal consequences. 
Applicable Provisions: - 
As per section 203(1) of Companies Act 2013, Every company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed shall have the following whole-time key managerial personnel, 
(i) Managing director, or Chief Executive Officer or manager and in their absence, a whole-time director; 
(ii) Company secretary; and 
(iii) Chief Financial Officer 
Provided that an individual shall not be appointed or reappointed as the chairperson of the company, in pursuance of the articles of the company, as well as the managing director or Chief Executive Officer of the company at the same time after the date of commencement of this Act unless, — 
(a) The articles of such a company provide otherwise; or 
(b) The company does not carry multiple businesses: 
If any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees. 
Facts of the case: - 
This case involves an appeal reviewed by the Regional Director of the South East Region in Hyderabad. The appeal was filed under section 454(5) of the Companies Act 2013, challenging a decision made by the Registrar of Companies. 
Registrar of Companies in his order of adjudication ha stated that the company has failed to appoint a company secretary as per Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 8A of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014, despite the paid up capital has exceeded the prescribed limit as stated in the section 203(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.  
This non-compliance has resulted in a hefty penalty of Rs. 20.00 lakhs being imposed on the company and its directors.  
On hearing, the practising company secretary, reiterated that the company is not in a position to bear the remuneration payable to the Whole time company secretary. The registered office of the company is in village having no proper transport system, all the shareholders are farmers. The company is a closely held private limited company. 
Penalty Imposed by Registrar of Companies on Company and Officers in Default 
Taking into consideration the facts of the appeal and submissions made by the authorized representative, the penalty imposed by Registrar of Companies is reduced.

Violation of section

Penalty imposed on company/ directors

Penalty imposed by ROC

Revised penalty imposed by RD

Sec. 203 of the Companies Act, 2013

Company

5,00,000

3,50,000

Managing Director

5,00,000

1,00,000

Director

5,00,000

Director

5,00,000

Total

20,00,000

4,50,000

Reduction in penalty 
The ground stated for the reduction of penalty are as follows:

That the penalty imposed on the non-executive directors is reduced on the ground due to Company is having a Managing Director, hence other non-executive director should  not have been penalized.

That the company is a closely held private limited company.

That the non-compliance is not intentional.

Exemption to Startup/ Small Company/OPC under section 446B:  
As per sec. 446B of the Companies Act, 2013, if penalty is payable for non-compliance of any of the provisions of this Act by a One Person Company, small company, start-up company or Producer Company, or by any of its officer in default, or any other person in respect of such company, then such company, its officer in default or any other person, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be more than one-half of the penalty specified in such provisions subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and one lakh rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person, as the case may be. 
In this case, Section 446B does not apply, as the company does not meet the criteria. 
Conclusion 
The MCA's decision to support Shree Gowthamee Rice Industries in India is a clear example of how regulators can adapt to unusual situations. It highlights the need for regulatory bodies to take into account global issues when evaluating how businesses manage their operations and follow rules. 
This case sets a new standard for how violations are judged, showing that the importance of complying with all legal provisions, as failure to do so led to significant penalties. 
Download MCA adjudication order:

In this article, we will take you through the mandatory provisions under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013. According to this section, every company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed shall have the following whole-time key managerial personnel-

(i) Managing director, or Chief Executive Officer or manager and in their absence, a whole-time director;

(ii) Company secretary; and

(iii) Chief Financial Officer

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in penalties for both the company and the officers in default, as specified under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, it is essential to adhere to these provisions to avoid any legal consequences.

Applicable Provisions: -

As per section 203(1) of Companies Act 2013, Every company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed shall have the following whole-time key managerial personnel,

(i) Managing director, or Chief Executive Officer or manager and in their absence, a whole-time director;

(ii) Company secretary; and

(iii) Chief Financial Officer

Provided that an individual shall not be appointed or reappointed as the chairperson of the company, in pursuance of the articles of the company, as well as the managing director or Chief Executive Officer of the company at the same time after the date of commencement of this Act unless, —

(a) The articles of such a company provide otherwise; or

(b) The company does not carry multiple businesses:

If any company makes any default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of five lakh rupees and every director and key managerial personnel of the company who is in default shall be liable to a penalty of fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues but not exceeding five lakh rupees.

Facts of the case: -

This case involves an appeal reviewed by the Regional Director of the South East Region in Hyderabad. The appeal was filed under section 454(5) of the Companies Act 2013, challenging a decision made by the Registrar of Companies.

Registrar of Companies in his order of adjudication ha stated that the company has failed to appoint a company secretary as per Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 8A of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014, despite the paid up capital has exceeded the prescribed limit as stated in the section 203(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

This non-compliance has resulted in a hefty penalty of Rs. 20.00 lakhs being imposed on the company and its directors.

On hearing, the practising company secretary, reiterated that the company is not in a position to bear the remuneration payable to the Whole time company secretary. The registered office of the company is in village having no proper transport system, all the shareholders are farmers. The company is a closely held private limited company.

Penalty Imposed by Registrar of Companies on Company and Officers in Default

Taking into consideration the facts of the appeal and submissions made by the authorized representative, the penalty imposed by Registrar of Companies is reduced.

Violation of section	Penalty imposed on company/ directors	Penalty imposed by ROC	Revised penalty imposed by RD
Sec. 203 of the Companies Act, 2013	Company	5,00,000	3,50,000
	Managing Director	5,00,000	1,00,000
	Director	5,00,000	-
	Director	5,00,000	-
	Total	20,00,000	4,50,000

Reduction in penalty

The ground stated for the reduction of penalty are as follows:

That the penalty imposed on the non-executive directors is reduced on the ground due to Company is having a Managing Director, hence other non-executive director should not have been penalized.

That the company is a closely held private limited company.
That the non-compliance is not intentional.

Exemption to Startup/ Small Company/OPC under section 446B:

As per sec. 446B of the Companies Act, 2013, if penalty is payable for non-compliance of any of the provisions of this Act by a One Person Company, small company, start-up company or Producer Company, or by any of its officer in default, or any other person in respect of such company, then such company, its officer in default or any other person, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be more than one-half of the penalty specified in such provisions subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and one lakh rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person, as the case may be.

In this case, Section 446B does not apply, as the company does not meet the criteria.

Conclusion

The MCA's decision to support Shree Gowthamee Rice Industries in India is a clear example of how regulators can adapt to unusual situations. It highlights the need for regulatory bodies to take into account global issues when evaluating how businesses manage their operations and follow rules.

This case sets a new standard for how violations are judged, showing that the importance of complying with all legal provisions, as failure to do so led to significant penalties.