ROC Penalty for Typo on Company Letterhead under Section 12

ROC Penalty for Typo on Company Letterhead under Section 12. In this article we will take you through the mandatory provisions under Section 12 of the companies Act, 2013. As per Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, every company is required to display its name, registered office address, Corporate Identification Number (CIN), telephone number, email address, and website (if any) on all business letters, billheads, letterheads, notices, and other official publications. Additionally, if the company’s name has been changed within the last two years, the former name must also be mentioned. These details must be legible and prominently displayed to ensure transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.
Non-compliance with letterhead and official document disclosure requirements, such as missing the company’s name, registered office address, or CIN, attracts the penalties for both company and officer in default.
Applicable Provision: 
The violation pertains to Section 12(3)(c) and (d), which mandates that every registered company must have its name and Corporate Identity Number (CIN) printed on business letters, billheads, and official publications. Additionally, non-compliance with this requirement attracts penalties under Section 12(8) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Facts of the Case: 
ROC Order:
In the case of Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited, ROC has issued a show cause notice to company and its director show cause for non-compliance for violation section 12 of the companies Act 2013. In response one of the directors submitted written representation and stated that this violation took place due to print was taken on wrong letterhead inadvertently without any malafide intention.
This typographical error occur because of the director is carrying a proprietorship firm named of “Laxshmi Developers” and company named as “Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited”. 
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai, upon review of the case, issued an order confirming that the company was in violation of Section 12(3)(c) and (d) of the Companies Act, 2013. 
Company filed an appeal stated that the as a human being it is quite possible to get a typographical error as the starting name of both proprietorship and company is same i.e “Lakshmi” / “Laxmi” where letter drafting get done by other staff person or there may be chances of running auto correct function in the computer system due to which spelling automatically changed at the time of typing from “ Laxmi to Lakshmi” Such an error was mistakenly, not purposely, written and should be readily remedied without objection.
Penalty Imposed: 
Upon examination, the Adjudicating Officer of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai, levied a penalty on the Company and its officers in default as follows:
• On Company: Rs 1,00,000
• On officer in default: Rs 1,00,000 each 
Reduction in Penalty:
Upon representation and considering the submissions made by the company, the Regional Director (Western Region), Mumbai, fixed the date of hearing to the appellant company as on 22.12.2020. 
Considering the fact and circumstances of the appellant company, RD has revised the penalty a s follows:
• On Company: Rs10,000
• On all three director: Rs 10,000
Conclusion
The case of Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited highlights the critical importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even unintentional errors, such as typographical mistakes on official documents, can lead to penalties for both the company and its officers. However, the appellate process provides an opportunity for companies to present mitigating circumstances, as seen in this case where the penalty was significantly reduced.
Download MCA Adjudication Order

In this article we will take you through the mandatory provisions under Section 12 of the companies Act, 2013. As per Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, every company is required to display its name, registered office address, Corporate Identification Number (CIN), telephone number, email address, and website (if any) on all business letters, billheads, letterheads, notices, and other official publications. Additionally, if the company’s name has been changed within the last two years, the former name must also be mentioned. These details must be legible and prominently displayed to ensure transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.

Non-compliance with letterhead and official document disclosure requirements, such as missing the company’s name, registered office address, or CIN, attracts the penalties for both company and officer in default.

Applicable Provision:

The violation pertains to Section 12(3)(c) and (d), which mandates that every registered company must have its name and Corporate Identity Number (CIN) printed on business letters, billheads, and official publications. Additionally, non-compliance with this requirement attracts penalties under Section 12(8) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Facts of the Case:

ROC Order:

In the case of Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited, ROC has issued a show cause notice to company and its director show cause for non-compliance for violation section 12 of the companies Act 2013. In response one of the directors submitted written representation and stated that this violation took place due to print was taken on wrong letterhead inadvertently without any malafide intention.

This typographical error occur because of the director is carrying a proprietorship firm named of “Laxshmi Developers” and company named as “Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited”.

The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai, upon review of the case, issued an order confirming that the company was in violation of Section 12(3)(c) and (d) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Company filed an appeal stated that the as a human being it is quite possible to get a typographical error as the starting name of both proprietorship and company is same i.e “Lakshmi” / “Laxmi” where letter drafting get done by other staff person or there may be chances of running auto correct function in the computer system due to which spelling automatically changed at the time of typing from “ Laxmi to Lakshmi” Such an error was mistakenly, not purposely, written and should be readily remedied without objection.

Penalty Imposed:

Upon examination, the Adjudicating Officer of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai, levied a penalty on the Company and its officers in default as follows:

• On Company: Rs 1,00,000

• On officer in default: Rs 1,00,000 each

Reduction in Penalty:

Upon representation and considering the submissions made by the company, the Regional Director (Western Region), Mumbai, fixed the date of hearing to the appellant company as on 22.12.2020.

Considering the fact and circumstances of the appellant company, RD has revised the penalty a s follows:

• On Company: Rs10,000

• On all three director: Rs 10,000

Conclusion

The case of Laxmidurga Constructions Private Limited highlights the critical importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even unintentional errors, such as typographical mistakes on official documents, can lead to penalties for both the company and its officers. However, the appellate process provides an opportunity for companies to present mitigating circumstances, as seen in this case where the penalty was significantly reduced.