The Registrar of Companies, Bangalore, passed an adjudication order under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 for violation of Section 155 relating to holding multiple Director Identification Numbers (DINs). The director had originally obtained a DIN in March 2016 and later applied for and was allotted a second DIN in June 2021 during incorporation of a private company. Upon realizing that holding two DINs contravened statutory provisions, she filed a suo-motu adjudication application. The violation continued from 01.06.2021 to 09.10.2025, totaling 1,592 days. Under Section 159, penalties include up to Rs. 50,000 plus Rs. 500 per day for continuing default. Considering that the violation was inadvertent, non-repetitive, caused no public injury, and that the maximum penalty exceeded her annual income, the Adjudicating Officer imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 1,50,000. The amount must be paid within 90 days, with an option to appeal before the Regional Director within 60 days.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
ROC Bangalore
Registrar Of Companies, ‘E’ Wing, 2nd Floor, Kendriya Sadana, Kormangala, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, 560034
Phone: 080-25633105,080-25537449
E-mail: roc.bangalore@mca.gov.in
Order No: PO/ADJ/02-2026/BL/01700 | Dated: 27/02/2026
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. 831(E) dated 24/03/2015 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 HIMANI RATNAKAR SHETTY ___________________
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 – Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty, Director (DIN: 07460590) has filed a suo-motu adjudication application for violation of section 155 of the Act read with Rule 11 of Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014. It is seen from the application that Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty obtained DIN (Director Identification Number) No. 07460590 on 04.03.2016. She had obtained her first DIN for being appointed as a designated partner in IME Consultants LLP, the current status of which is struck off.
Thereafter, the applicant became a director in IME Capital Private Limited which was incorporated on 01.06.2021 under the jurisdiction of this office. During the process of incorporation, Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty applied for what eventually was her second DIN and the same was allotted vide DIN 09190424 on 01.06.2021. However, the applicant has come to the realization that the acquisition of DIN 09190424 was in contravention of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, this adjudication application has been filed on 10.10.2025.
Thereby, Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty has violated the provisions of section 155 of the Act from 01.06.2021 to 09.10.2025 with a delay of 1592 days.
2. The officer in default has not asked for a hearing and same was not provided. The order is issued based on the application, notice for adjudication and replies received.
E. Order:
1. Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty, Director (DIN: 07460590) has filed a suo-motu adjudication application for violation of section 155 of the Act read with Rule 11 of Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014. It is seen from the application that Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty obtained DIN (Director Identification Number) No. 07460590 on 04.03.2016. She had obtained her first DIN for being appointed as a designated partner in IME Consultants LLP, the current status of which is struck off.
Thereafter, Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty became a director in IME Capital Private Limited which was incorporated on 01.06.2021 under the jurisdiction of this office. During the process of incorporation, Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty applied for what eventually was her second DIN and the same was allotted vide DIN 09190424 on 01.06.2021. However, the applicant has come to the realization that the acquisition of DIN 09190424 was in contravention of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Subsequently, this adjudication application has been made by her.
Thereby, Ms. Himani Ratnakar Shetty has violated the provisions of section 155 of the Act from 01.06.2021 to 09.10.2025 with a delay of 1592 days.
Pursuant to the adjudication application filed by the Applicant, show cause notice dated 30.12.2025 was sent to the director through e-Adjudication module, speed post and through email. The Director submitted her replies on the e-Adjudication portal stating, inter alia, as ? ?Due to an inadvertent and Bonafide mistake she was allotted second DIN. The occurrence was neither deliberate nor with any intent to derive undue benefit. Upon becoming aware, the Applicant has voluntarily approached ROC for adjudication and surrender of DIN.? Further, the Director submitted a copy of Income Tax Return and stated that total income earned is much lower than the penalty mentioned in Notice and prayed for nominal penalty. Further, the Director opted for no hearing in the matter and hence, the same has not been provided. This order is issued based on the application, notice for adjudication, and the replies received.
It is established that there is a violation of section 155 of the Act for the duration of 01.06.2021 to 09.10.2025 i.e. 1592 days which is punishable under section 159 of the Act which provides for a maximum one-time penalty of fifty thousand rupees and further maximum penalty of five hundred rupees for each day after the first during which the default continues. The reply given by the Director is examined and found that she had total income of Rs. 5,01,020/- for Financial Year 2024-25. The maximum penalty of Rs. 8,45,500/- is much higher than the annual income of the Applicant. Further, the DINs of the Director have been used in 1 Private Company and 2 LLPs out of which one is already struck off.
Therefore, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the director through reply to the Notice as detailed above, and in exercise of the powers vested under section 454(3)(a) of the Companies Act 2013, I do hereby impose the penalty in the following manner on the director considering the nature of default, its non-repeating nature and no injury caused to public interest in accordance with provisions of Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014.
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 | HIMANI RATNAKAR SHETTY having DIN as 07460590 |
150000 | 0 | 845500 |
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 Bangalore 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.
Manoj Bang,
Registrar of Companies
ROC Bangalore
