SEO Title: Section 159 Penalty Imposed for Possessing Duplicate DIN Under Section 155: ROC Cuttack
The Registrar of Companies, Cuttack, passed an adjudication order dated 9 July 2026 under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, for violation of Section 159 arising from contravention of Section 155. The individual had voluntarily applied for adjudication after obtaining and possessing a duplicate Director Identification Number (DIN), having been allotted one DIN on 30 March 2019 and another on 7 April 2021. The noticee stated that the duplication occurred due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, voluntarily initiated corrective action, sought surrender of the duplicate DIN, and requested leniency citing financial hardship. An e-hearing was conducted, during which the authorised representative reiterated these submissions. The adjudicating authority observed that the noticee admitted obtaining the duplicate DIN and held that the violation continued from 7 April 2021 until 1 September 2025, the day before filing Form DIR-5 for surrender of the second DIN. Considering the facts, circumstances and submissions, the authority imposed a penalty of ₹1,50,000, directed payment within 90 days through the MCA e-Adjudication facility, required filing of e-Form INC-28 after payment, and stated that an appeal may be filed before the Regional Director, Hyderabad, within 60 days.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
ROC Cuttack
ROC-cum-Official Liquidator, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, Corporate Bhawan, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Plot No-9(P), Sector-1,
CDA, Cuttack, Orissa, India, 753014
Phone: 0671-2366952
E-mail: roc.cuttack@mca.gov.in
Order ID: PO/ADJ/07-2026/CT/02511 Dated: 09/07/2026
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 RAKESH ROSHAN SAHOO ——-
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 – Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo has requested suo-moto, vide application dated 12.01.2026, for adjudication of the offence committed by him under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The details of the violation occurred is as under :-
Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that “No individual, who has already been allotted a DIN under Section 154, shall apply for, obtain or possess another DIN.” It is observed that Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo, S/o- Pabitra Mohan Sahoo has possessed duplicate DIN. He has obtained DIN bearing No.08406927 on 30.03.2019 and subsequently, he has possessed another DIN bearing No.09137446 on 07.04.2021 Hence, Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo has contravened the provisions of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013 and is liable to be punished under Section 159 of the Companies Act 2013.
2. Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo, the applicant/noticee has furnished reply vide letter dated 15.03.2026. However, Shri Sahoo has requested for e-hearing to present the facts and circumstances of the case more elaborately. Hence, to ensure an opportunity of being heard, e-hearing was provided.
E. Order:
1.
(i) Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo in his reply dated 5.03.2026 has stated that :- “due to an inadvertent and boda fide mistake, a second DIN came to be allotted in my name. The duplication occurred purely unintentionally and without any deliberate act or intention on my part to derive any undue benefit. Upon becoming aware of the duplication, I immediately initiated corrective steps and voluntarily approached the Office of ROC seeking adjudication and surrender of duplicate DIN in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the rules made thereunder. My financial position is extremely modest, a copy of my Income Tax Return has been submitted which clearly reflects that my total income is significantly lower than the penalty amount mentioned in the notice. Imposition of a substantial penalty would therefore cause severe financial hardship to me. “
During the e-hearing held on 11.06.2026, the Authorised Representative Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma, Practicing Company Secretary having Membership No.33114 and CP No.19090, appeared on behalf of the applicant-Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo. He has submitted that duplicate DIN occurred due to an inadvertent and unintentional mistake and requested to consider the penalty amount leniently keeping in view of his financial position. Upon enquired about his involvement in the companies, he has stated that Shri Sahoo is a Director in one company only.
(ii) It is observed from the MCA Portal that his first DIN (08406927) is not associated in any company/LLP. However, as per record of his 2nd DIN (09137446), he is associated with two companies namely Rdele Ventures Private Limited (status of company is active) and Sutel Communication Private Limited (status of the company is strike off ). Further, it is observed from the Financial Statements for the Financial Year 2024-25 filed by the company- Rdele Ventures Private Limited that the company is a small company having paid up share capital of Rs.1,00,000/-, Turnover of Rs.21,44,130/- and net Profit of Rs.1,10,850/-. It is also observed from the Income Tex Return submitted by Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo for the Financial year 2024-25 (Assessment Year 2025-26) that he has total income of Rs.6,34,190/- during the year.
(iii) Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo in his letter dated 15.03.2026 and the Authorised Representative, during the course of e-hearing held on 11.06.2026, have admitted that Shri Sahoo has obtained duplicate DIN. Therefore, it is established that there is a violation of Section 155 of the Act for the period from 07.04.2021 (the date of obtaining the second DIN (09137446) to 01.09.2025 (the immediate day before the date of filing DIR-5 form vide SRN-AB6442537 for surrender of second DIN) i.e. for 1608 days which is punishable under Section 159 of the Act which provides for 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.
Therefore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the applicant and in exercise of the powers vested under section 454(3)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014, I do hereby impose penalty in the following manner on the applicant- Shri Rakesh Roshan Sahoo for violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013.
(iv) The applicant in default shall pay the penalty amount as mentioned herein below through online mode in compliance with Rule 3(14) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Amendment Rules, 2019, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, specifying the details of this order and the name of the noticee making such payment. Further, he shall file e-Form INC-28 along with a copy of this order and the payment challans immediately after payment of the penalty amount.
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 | RAKESH ROSHAN SAHOO having DIN as 09137446 | 150000 | 0 | 920000 |
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 Hyderabad 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.
Sitaram Gupta,
Registrar of Companies
ROC Cuttack
