The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai imposed a penalty of ₹48,870 on an individual director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers (DINs) in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The individual had originally obtained a DIN in 2006 but inadvertently applied for another DIN during incorporation proceedings in 2021, resulting in duplicate DIN allotment. The ROC noted that Section 155 expressly prohibits any person from applying for or possessing more than one DIN. Although the applicant voluntarily disclosed the violation through a suo motu adjudication application and explained that technical constraints delayed surrender of the duplicate DIN, the adjudicating authority held that the default continued from the date of obtaining the second DIN until filing Form DIR-5 for surrender. Considering the bona fide conduct, absence of public prejudice, and lack of intentional wrongdoing, the ROC imposed a reduced continuing penalty calculated on a per-day basis under Section 159.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
ROC Mumbai I
100, Everest, Marine Drive, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, 400002
Phone: 022-22812627
E-mail: roc.mumbai@mca.gov.in
Order ID: PO/ADJ/05-2026/MH/02099| Dated: 07/05/2026
ORDER FOR ADJUDICATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 454 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 (‘THE ACT’) FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 159 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013.
A. Appointment of Adjudicating Officer:
Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its Gazette notification number S.O. 698(E) dated 10/02/2026 appointed undersigned as Adjudicating Officer in exercise of the powers conferred by section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 [herein after known as Act] read with Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014 for adjudging penalties under the provisions of this Act.
B. Individual details:
In the matter relating to ERROL JAMES DESOUZA [herein after known as individual] having DIN 00053201 and having its address at __________
C. Provisions of the Act:
If any individual or director of a company makes any default in complying with any of the provisions of section 152, section 155 and section 156, such individual or director of the company shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and where the default is a continuing one, with a further penalty which may extend to five hundred rupees for each day after the first during which such default continues.
D. Facts about the case:
1. Default committed by the officers in default/noticee – Whereas, the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai-I (hereinafter referred to as the ROC, Mumbai I) is in receipt of a suo-motu Adjudication Application dated 09.03.2026 submitted by Mr Errol James Desouza, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) under Section 454 read with Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 for default under Section 155 of the Act on account of obtaining duplicate Director Identification Number (DIN).
Whereas Section 155 of the Act reads as follows:
No individual, who has already been allotted a Director Identification Number under section 154, shall apply for, obtain or possess another Director Identification Number.
Whereas the Applicant stated that he had applied for and was allotted the first DIN:00053201 on 20.05.2006 . Further, the applicant admitted that during the incorporation proceeding of the Company, he inadverenlty applied for a new DIN as part of incorporation filings and he was allotted second DIN: 09368727 on 21.10.2021. Thus, the Applicant was in possession of two DINs in contravention of the provisions of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Applicant further stated that due to technical constraints on the MCA portal and the Applicable provisions requiring for adjudication process for surrender of duplicate DIN, the form DIR-5 filed vide SRN AB9145395 on 24.11.2025 was not approved.
2. The Noticee did not request for an E- hearing. The Adjudicating officer is also of the view that no E-hearing is required in the instant case.
E. Order:
1. A. A Show Cause notice bearing ID: SCN/ADJ/04-2026/MH/04173 dated 15.04.2026 was issued to the Noticee on the E-adjudication portal under Section 454 read with Section 159 for default under Section 155 of the Act.
B. The Noticee replied to the said Show Cause Notice on the E-adjudication portal on 20.04.2026 and admitted the default.
C. The Noticee did not request for an E- hearing. The Adjudicating officer is also of the view that no E-hearing is required in the instant case.
D. Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014 provides that while adjudging quantum of penalty, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) size of the company; (b) nature of business carried on by the company; (c) injury to public interest; (d) nature of the default; (e) repetition of the default; (f) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; and (g) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors or creditors as a result of the default:
E. On perusal of the suo motu adjudication application and submissions made thereunder, it is observed that the default was not intentional and not of such nature as will prejudice the interests of the members or creditors or others dealing with the Company. Further, the said default was such that it has not affected public interest in any way.
F. Thus, I am of the view that given the bonafide action on part of the Applicant in submitting the suo-moto adjudication application and the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances, the quantum of penalty shall be Rs. 10,000/- for first default and further penalty of Rs.26/- for each day after the first during which such default continued.
G. Thus, the period of default is considered from 21.10.2021 that is the date of obtaining second DIN till 24.11.2025 that is the date of filing E-form DIR-5 to surrender second DIN 09368727 which amounts to 1496 days. The Applicant shall be liable to a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for first default and Rs. 26/- per day for further 1495 days that is Rs. 38,870/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred seventy only) aggregating to Rs.48,870/- (Rupees Forty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred seventy only).
H. Now, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Adjudicating Officer vide Notification dated 24th March 2015, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, show-cause notice sent and reply received thereto, I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 48,870/- (Rupees Forty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred seventy only). under the penal provisions of Section 159 for default under Section 155 on the Applicant Director that is Mr. ERROL JAMES DESOUZA.
2. The details of penalty imposed on the company, officers in default and others are shown in the table below:
| (A) | Name of person on whom penalty imposed (B) | Rectification of Default required (C) | Penalty Amount (D) | Additional Penalty (E) (*Per day of continuing default i.e. date of rectification of default less order issue date) | Maximum limit for Penalty (F) |
| 1 | ERROL JAMES DESOUZA having DIN as 0053201 | NA | 48870 | 0 | 50000 |
3. The notified officers in default/noticee shall rectify the default mentioned above and pay the penalty, so applicable within 90 days of receipt of the order.
4. The notified officers in default/noticee shall pay the penalty amount via ‘e-Adjudication’ facility which can be accessed through the respective login IDs on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and upload the copy of paid challan / SRN of e-filing (if applicable) on the ‘e-Adjudication’ portal itself. It is also directed that the penalty so imposed upon the officers in default shall be paid from their personal sources/income.
5. Appeal against this order may be filed in writing with the Regional Director, RD Mumbai within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of this order, in Form ADJ setting for the grounds of appeal and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of this order [Section 454 (5) & 454 (6) of the Act, read with Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014].
6. For penal consequences of non-payment of penalty within the prescribed time limit, please refer Section 454(8) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Chandan Kumar,
Registrar of Companies
ROC Mumbai I
