ROC Slaps Rs 4 Lakh Penalty on Nidhi Company and Its Directors for Non-Disclosure of POSH Compliance:

ROC imposed penalties on the company and its directors for failing to disclose POSH compliance in the Board’s Report, in violation of the Companies Act, 2013.
Company Penalised for Violation of Board’s Report Disclosure Requirements

ROC Slaps Rs 4 Lakh Penalty on Nidhi Company and Its Directors for Non-Disclosure of POSH Compliance
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Chennai has issued an Adjudication Order dated January 12, 2026, imposing a penalty on a company, namely The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited, and its two directors, Parthasarathy Arumugam Devasenathipathy and Dhevanathanyadav, under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the contravention of Section 204(4) of the Act.
An inspection was conducted examining the books and accounts of the company, The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited, under Section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. This inspection was carried out by an authorized officer of the Government of India, wherein he observed that the company had contravened Section 134(3)(q) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 8(5)(x) of the Companies (Accounts) Rule, 2014, by not disclosing whether it had complied with the provisions relating to the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
This disclosure was required to be made by the company in the Board's report, which is a part of the financial statements, as compulsory under Rule 8(5)(x) of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014. This non-compliance pertained to the financial years 2018-19 to 2019-20.
In conclusion, the adjudicating authority, upon receiving the inspection report, held that the company and its directors were entitled to a penal action under Section 134(8) of the Companies Act, 2013, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakh on the company, Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Nidhi Limited, and Rs. 1 lakh on its two directors, Parthasarathy Arumugam Devasenathipathy and Dhevanathanyadav (Rs. 50,000 on each). Additionally, directed to rectify their default and pay the required amount of penalty within 90 days of receiving the 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








