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
2460My Recent Articles
- ITAT Strikes Down Entire Reassessment Proceedings Over Unsigned Section 148 NoticePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 271B Penalty, Holds Form 3CD Reporting Error Covered Under Reasonable CausePremium
- A Taxpayer Cannot Be Forced to Pay GST Twice Merely Because Tax Paid Under Wrong Head, Rules High CourtPremium
- ITAT Restores Appeal After Condoning 1,929-Day Delay Caused by Director’s Jail Term and IllnessPremium
- Partial Tax Refund Must Be Adjusted Against Interest First, ITAT Upholds Section 244A Refund Interest ComputationPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








