ROC Imposes Penalty of 3.275 Lakh for Holding Duplicate DIN:

ROC Imposes Penalty of Rs. 3,27,500 on a director named Nirmala Baid for holding duplicate DIN for violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act 2013.
Penalty Levied On Director for Violating Section 155

ROC Imposes Penalty of 3.275 Lakh for Holding Duplicate DIN
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), West Bengal, has imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,27,500 on a director named Nirmala Baid for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata, West Bengal, under Section 159 of the Act for failure to comply with the Act u/s. 155 of the Act. Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013, restricts individuals from applying for, obtaining, or possessing more than one Director Identification Number (DIN) after already being allotted one under section 154. This section ensures that each director has a unique DIN, facilitating regulatory compliance and oversight. The present appeal was filed under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014, using Form ADJ (SRN No. A82443565 dated 16.01.2025). It challenges the penalty order dated 03.12.2024 for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata. The order was communicated to the appellant through letter No. ROC/ADJ/650/2024/8637 on the same date. The appeal was submitted within the 60-day time limit as required under Section 454(6) of the Act. The Registrar of Companies (ROC), West Bengal, had issued a notice on 27.11.2022 (Notice No. ROC/ADJ/65012024 18475) to the director for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act. However, the director (Appellant) did not respond to the notice. Later, on 03.12.2024, the ROC passed an Adjudication Order (No. ROC/ADJ/65012024 18637) after holding a hearing where Ms. Jayshri Tulsyan, a company secretary, appeared on behalf of the director. The ROC then passed the order, as shown in the table below.
This penalty has been imposed for a total of 555 days, i.e., from 17.04.2023 (i.e., the date of obtaining the duplicate DIN) to 23.10.2024 (i.e., the date of filing of DIR-S to surrender the Duplicate DIN).
The appellant is instructed to follow the order of the ROC dated 03.12.2024 and pay the penalty mentioned in that order within the time period of 90 days. If the penalty is not paid within the designated time period, then further action will be taken against the individual under Section 454(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Therefore, this appeal is now closed.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
2702My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condoned Delay After Noting Indeed Technical Glitch on E-filing Portal and Restores Section 12A and 80G ApplicationsPremium
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
No tags yet.
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
No tags yet.









