ROC Delhi Penalises Company and Its Directors for Violating Private Placement Rules:

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Delhi penalises a company and its directors for violating private placement procedures under Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Penalty Imposed for Non-Compliance with Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013

ROC Delhi Penalises Company and Its Directors for Violating Private Placement Rules
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Delhi under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India, has an Order for Adjudication (Order ID: PO/ADJ/10-2025/DL/00771), dated October 14, 2025, under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘The Act’) For Violation of Section 42(10) of the Companies Act, 2013. Basically, ROC Delhi has imposed a penalty on a company known as Hexafun Private Limited and some of its directors named Harshit Singhal (DIN: 10147661), Aakansha Singhal (DIN: 10147662) and Manali Shailesh Sanghvi (DIN: 10560362). The company is located in Geeta Colony, East Delhi, and the directors live in Delhi, Noida, and Mumbai.
According to Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013, if a company raises money through private placement but does not adhere to the legal process properly, then both the company and its directors can be penalised, and this penalty amount may extend to the amount raised through the private placement or two crore rupees, whichever is lower. They must also refund the money to investors within 30 days of receiving the penalty order.
The company is accused of making several mistakes during the issuance of 311 equity shares in December 2023:
The company and directors have been instructed to pay these penalty amounts within 90 days from receiving the order at the MCA e-Adjudication portal, and the directors must pay from their personal funds.
If the company and its directors are not satisfied with the ROC's order, then they are also permitted to challenge the order by filing an appeal against it within 60 days to the Regional Director (RD) Noida using Form ADJ, along with a certified copy of this order.
- (a) The company sent out the offer letter to investors (Form PAS-4) before filing the necessary resolution with the ROC. This is not allowed. The filing should have been done first.
- (b) The offer letter was not addressed specifically to individual investors, which is another violation.
- (c) The company did not open a separate bank account for collecting money from investors, which is mandatory under Section 42(6).
- (d) The company used the collected funds before filing the return of allotment (Form PAS-3) with the ROC. This also breaks the rule.
| Name | Penalty (Rs.) | Remarks |
| Hexafun Private Limited | Rs. 2,00,000 | For non-compliance |
| Harshit Singhal (Director) | Rs. 1,00,000 | For being in default |
| Aakansha Singhal (Director) | Rs. 1,00,000 | For being in default |
| Manali Shailesh Sanghvi (Director) | Rs. 0 | Not responsible, as she joined later |
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
2485My Recent Articles
- 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
- ITAT Condones 1,731-Day Delay, Remands Cancer Trust's Section 12A Registration Application for Fresh ConsiderationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…









