ROC Imposes Penalty of Rs. 3.45 lakh on Company and Its Officials Over Failure to Appoint Woman Director:

ROC imposed penalties on company and its officials for failing to appoint a woman director within the prescribed time under the Companies Act, 2013.
Adjudication Order Passed Against Company for Non-Compliance with Section 149

ROC Imposes Penalty of Rs. 3.45 lakh on Company and Its Officials Over Failure to Appoint Woman Director
ROC Ahmedabad under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India, has issued an Adjudication Order dated December 15, 2025, against a company named German Green Steel and Power Limited, having CIN U27100GJ2008PLC054437 and its officials, imposing a penalty under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, for violation of Section 172 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The case is related to Inamulhaq Shamsulhaq Iraki, having DIN 00292588, and Abdulhaq Shamsulhaq Iraki, having DIN 02188266. Both of these individuals are connected to the aforesaid company.
The company and its officers had admitted the non-compliance done by them and furnished a joint application (Form GNL-1) on May 31, 2025. The company was alleged for non-appointment of a woman director as required under Section 149(1) read with Rule 3 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.
The company was required to make the said appointment by July 01, 2021; however, the company missed the date, and upon realising the non-compliance, it immediately appointed a woman director on January 01, 2022. An opportunity of hearing was given under Section 454(4), but no representative of the company or officers attended the e-hearing. In their written reply, the company and officers requested the authority to pass a suitable order.
In conclusion, the ROC Ahmedabad imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 1.45 lakh on the company, German Green Steel and Power Limited, and Rs. 1 lakh on Inamulhaq Shamsulhaq Iraki and Abdulhaq Shamsulhaq Iraki each. The company has been given a time limit of 90 days from receiving the order to rectify the aforementioned default and pay the imposed penalty amount.
Additionally, it instructed the company that if it is dissatisfied with the order, it has the opportunity to challenge the order before the Regional Director, RD Ahmedabad, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of this 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
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
Recent Posts
All Posts








