ROC Imposes Penalty on Company for Inadequate Directors’ Report Disclosures:

Failure to explain auditor’s adverse remarks on statutory deposits attracts Section 134(8) penalty
ROC Kanpur Penalises Nidhi Company for Defective Directors’ Report under Section 134

ROC Imposes Penalty on Company for Inadequate Directors’ Report Disclosures
Pranam India Nidhi Limited, a Nidhi company registered in Uttar Pradesh, was subjected to an inquiry under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 pursuant to directions issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. During the inquiry, it was observed that the statutory auditor, in his report for the financial years ending 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017, had recorded an adverse remark that the company had failed to maintain unencumbered term deposits of at least ten percent of outstanding deposits, as mandated under the Nidhi Rules, 2014.
The directors did not provide any explanation or justification in the Directors’ Report for FY 2016-17. Based on the inquiry report, ROC initiated adjudication proceedings for non-compliance with Section 134(3) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued on 09.01.2026; however, neither the company nor its directors responded or sought a hearing.
Issue Before Registrar: Whether failure to explain adverse audit remarks relating to statutory Nidhi deposit requirements in the Directors’ Report constitutes a violation of Section 134(3) of the Companies Act, attracting penalty under Section 134(8).
ROC’s Ruling: The Registrar of Companies, Kanpur held that the company and its directors were in clear default of Section 134(3) for not addressing the auditor’s adverse observations in the Directors’ Report for FY 2016-17.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 134(8). A penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was levied on the company, while each of the three directors was penalised Rs. 50,000. The order directed rectification of the default and payment of penalties within 90 days, with liberty to file an appeal before the Regional Director, Noida.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2231My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Bogus Purchase Addition to 1.15% Profit Element Despite Seller DenialsPremium
- ITAT Upholds Reassessment, Rejects Challenge Over Absence of Section 143(2) NoticePremium
- High Court Quashes Section 148 Notice Based on Wrong Assessee's Investigation ReportPremium
- ITAT Allows Set-Off of Brought Forward Business Loss Against Section 50 Capital GainsPremium
- High Court Quashes Reassessment Based on Mere Change of Opinion After ScrutinyPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








