The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Kolkata, imposed a penalty under Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the possession of duplicate Director Identification Numbers (DINs). The applicant had originally obtained a DIN in 2008 but inadvertently applied for and received another DIN in 2020. The duplication came to light during the filing of Form DIR-3 KYC, following which the applicant voluntarily filed Form DIR-5 to surrender the later DIN. The applicant admitted the contravention, contending that the second DIN was obtained unintentionally due to a genuine oversight and without any fraudulent intent, unfair gain, or prejudice to stakeholders. The ROC noted the voluntary disclosure, absence of investor loss, lack of public injury, and no evidence of repeated misuse. However, since Section 155 prohibits holding multiple DINs, the adjudicating authority concluded that a statutory violation had occurred and imposed a penalty of ₹10,18,500 on the individual.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
ROC Kolkata I
4th Floor Plot No. IIIF/16, in AA-IIIF Rajarhat, New Town, Akandakeshari, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, 700135
Phone: 033-22877390
E-mail: roc.kolkata@mca.gov.in
Order ID: PO/ADJ/05-2026/WB/02165 | Dated: 02/06/2026
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 SHRADDHA FOGLA…………..
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 –
2. The Applicant Director has filed GNL-1 vide SRN: AB720639 dated 30/07/2025 and a physical application dated 30/07/2025 for Adjudicating the Offence under Section 159.
3. I shraddha fogla, residing at 30, Nepal Bhattacharjee First Lane, Kalighat, Kolkata-700026., has this formal application for the adjudication of penalty under Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013, concerning the inadvertent acquisition of a Duplicate Director Identification Number (DIN).
4. The applicant became aware of the duplicate DIN during the filing of Form DIR-3-KYC, associated with her name. Specifically, DIN: 02007594 allotted on 18/01/2008 (approved) and DIN: 08686026 allotted on 31/01/2020 (Deactivated) (to be surrendered).
5. The applicant states that he obtained DIN: 02007594 which was approved on 18/01/2008 whereas inadvertently he applied for second DIN: 08686026 which was approved on 31/01/2020. Now the Applicant has been allotted 2 (Two) DINs without any wrongful intention or causing any injustice to any such organization wherein the applicant has acted as Director. The applicant hereby confirms that both the DIN obtained has been utilized unintentionally and inadvertently. But as soon as the applicant realizes that he has obtained 2 (Two) DIN violating the provision of Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 he has filed form DIR-5 on 21/05/2025 vide SRN: AB4075372 for Surrender DIN: 08686026 Subsequent to this filing, the applicant received directives from the governing authority to resubmit the Form No. DIR-5, with instructions as follows:
6. The DIN holder has taken second DIN in violation of Section 159 of the Act and required to get compounded/adjudicated the violation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 to consider the application.
7. This directive led the applicant to become cognizant of the Adjudication procedure prescribed by the regulatory framework, but again the applicant could not find any e-form. Contravention:
8. The applicant has acknowledged that my actions have contravened Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 which explicitly prohibits individuals from possessing multiple DINs. However, the applicant asserts that this contravention was not born out of deliberate intent but rather stemmed from a genuine misunderstanding regarding the existence of the older DIN: 02007594 at the time of applying for the newer DIN.
9. The applicant states that he was further supported by the lapse of the MCA e-System and database, which should have warned the applicant while filing for obtaining the second DIN with the same particulars as contained in DIN: 02007594.
10. As requested by the applicant.
E. Order:
1.The applicant, Ms. Shraddha Fogla, filed an application in Form GNL-1 vide SRN AB720639 dated 30.07.2025, along with physical application dated 30.07.2025, seeking adjudication of penalty in relation to acquisition / possession of duplicate Director Identification Number.
2. The applicant has stated that she was originally allotted DIN 02007594 on 18.01.2008, which is intended to be retained. Subsequently, another DIN, namely DIN 08686026, was allotted on 31.01.2020, which is stated to be deactivated and proposed to be surrendered.
3.The applicant has stated that she became aware of the duplicate DIN during filing of Form DIR-3-KYC.
4.The applicant thereafter filed Form DIR-5 on 21.05.2025 vide SRN AB4075372 for surrender of DIN 08686026. The applicant was informed that since the second DIN had been obtained in violation of the Act, the contravention was required to be adjudicated before the surrender application could be considered.
5. The applicant has admitted the contravention and has submitted that the second DIN was obtained inadvertently, without wrongful intention, and without causing injustice to any organisation where she acted as director
6. Rule 3(12) provides that while adjudging quantum of penalty, the Adjudicating Officer shall have due regard to the following factors:
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. amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; and
g. amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors or creditors as a result of the default.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case the submissions made by the applicant namely the applicant admitted the contravention, the applicant voluntarily filed Form DIR-5, no unfair gain has been established, no investor or creditor loss has been shown, no direct injury to public interest has been proved; and there is no material showing repetition or fraudulent misuse, the provisions of Sections 155, 159 and 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014, I hereby impose the penalty of Rs. 2,60,000.
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 | SHRADDHA FOGLA having DIN as 08686026 | 1018500 | 0 | 1018500 |
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 Kolkata 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.
Arya Pyarelal,
Registrar of Companies
ROC Kolkata
