The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, passed an adjudication order under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, imposing a penalty for violation of Section 155, which prohibits individuals from holding more than one Director Identification Number (DIN). The individual had originally obtained a DIN in 2008 but inadvertently applied for and received a second DIN in 2023, later using it for an LLP appointment. Upon realizing the error, he voluntarily filed for surrender of the duplicate DIN and submitted a suo motu adjudication application. The authority acknowledged the absence of fraudulent intent and considered mitigating factors such as bona fide conduct and corrective action. However, since the law imposes strict liability, a penalty was levied for the period of default, calculated at 502 days. A total penalty of ₹50,000 was imposed, including a base penalty and daily continuing default charges, reinforcing compliance obligations despite genuine mistakes.
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/01-2026/MB/01467 Dated: 27/04/2026
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 ANKIT BHAGERIA —-
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 (hereinafter referred to as the ROC) is in receipt of a suo-motu Adjudication Application dated 27.08.2024 submitted by Mr. Ankit Bhageria, (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, in relation to obtaining duplicate Director Identification Number (DIN).
Whereas Section 155 of the Act states that:
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 has stated that he had applied for and was allotted the First DIN: (02221058) on 25.06.2008. He utilised the said DIN for his appointment as an Additional Director in Optimix Advisors Private Limited w.e.f. 08.06.2012. He subsequently resigned from the aforesaid Company on 28.08.2012.
Whereas the aforesaid Company was converted to a LLP and a fresh Certificate of Registration was issued in the name of Optimix Advisors LLP on 24.10.2017.
Whereas the Applicant has further submitted that he was not associated with any Company or LLP since 2012 and therefore, unknowingly re-applied for a second DIN in 2023. He was allotted such second DIN (10118021) on 14.04.2023, despite his previous DIN. He used the second DIN for his appointment as a Designated Partner in the aforesaid LLP. Thus, the Applicant was in possession of two DINs simultaneously in contravention of the provisions of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the Applicant has further submitted that the application for a second DIN was an unintentional error and devoid of any fraudulent intent.
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/09-2025/MB/02505 dated 02.12.2025 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 22.12.2025 along with copy of approval letter dated 25.09.2025 issued by Regional Director, Noida approving the surrender of DIN 10118021 filed in DIR-5 vide SRN AB4654059. He further submitted that due to lack of familiarity with MCA processes he inadvertently obtained the Second DIN on 14.04.2023 in contravention of Section 155 of the Act.
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 documents filed and details available on MCA portal, it is observed that the applicant obtained the duplicate DIN unintentionally and upon realisation, she initiated corrective action by filing E-form DIR-5 vide SRN AB4654059 on 14.08.2025.
F. Thus, I am of the view that given the bonafide action on part of the Applicant in submitting the suo-moto adjudication application, the quantum of penalty shall be Rs.39,980/- for first default and further penalty of Rs.20/- for each day after the first during which such default continued.
G. Thus, the period of default is considered from 14.04.2023 that is the date of obtaining second DIN till 27.08.2024 that is the date of filing of Adjudication Application, which amounts to 502 days. The Applicant shall be liable to a penalty of Rs.39,980/- for first default and Rs. 20/- for each day for 501 days that is Rs.10,020/- aggregating to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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, the Adjudicating Officer hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under the penal provisions of Section 159 for the default under Section 155 on the Applicant Director that is Mr. ANKIT BHAGERIA.
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 | Amkit Bhageria having DIN as 02221058 |
The noticee is directed to file E-form DIR-5 for surrender of appropriate DIN. | 50000 | 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
