DIR-3 KYC Default Triggers Action: ROC Slaps Penalty on Company and Directors under Section 454:

ROC imposed a penalty on the company and its four directors for failing to complete mandatory DIR-3 KYC compliance and not responding during inquiry proceedings.
Non-Filing of DIR-3 KYC Costs Company

DIR-3 KYC Default Triggers Action: ROC Slaps Penalty on Company and Directors under Section 454
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Kanpur has issued an order of adjudication dated February 02, 2026, imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 4 lakh on a company named Pillars Mutual Nidhi Limited and its four directors under Section 454 of the Companies Act 2013.
The Serious Corporate Affairs (SCA), through its meeting minutes dated April 10, 2020, of the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs), instructed for an inquiry of the default company under Section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. During the inquiry, the concerned officer observed from the MCA21 records that the KYC status of all the directors of the company was deactivated for non-furnishing of DIR-3 KYC. This reflected an explicit contravention of the provisions of Rule 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.
In conclusion to this non-compliance, penalty proceedings under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013, were suggested against the company and its directors in default. The Inquiry Officer mentioned the same in its report dated September 26, 2022.
Later DGCoA and the Regional Director (NR) directed the ROC Kanpur to take necessary actions against the company and its director for non-compliance with section 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.
Further, the office noted that the company and its directors neither submitted any response nor requested any hearing in this context. Considering the same, the ROC Kanpur imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 2 lakh on the company, Pillars Mutual Nidhi Limited, and Rs. 2 lakh on its four directors named Devi Lal Kushwaha, Deepchand Kushwaha, Rajendra Kumar, and Bhupendra Kushwaha (Rs. 50,000 on each).
Additionally, directed them all to pay the levied penalty amount and correct the default within the time period of 90 days from the date of receiving the order.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2486My Recent Articles
- ITAT Grants Taxpayer Fresh Opportunity to Contest Rs 44.16 Lakh Addition After Finding No Decision on MeritsPremium
- Trust’s Sections 12AB and 80G Registration Cannot Be Denied Before Charitable Project Is Completed, Holds ITATPremium
- ITAT Says Identity and Creditworthiness Irrelevant Where Loan Was Directly Paid to Haryana Mining DepartmentPremium
- Earlier Rejection Cannot Be Sole Ground to Reject Fresh Section 12AB and 80G Registration Applications, Says ITATPremium
- Cash Deposited During Demonetisation Cannot Be Taxed Under Section 69A if Linked to Business, Holds ITAT Premium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








