In a recent adjudication proceeding under the Companies Act, 2013, the Registrar of Companies in Rajasthan, Jaipur, made a noteworthy decision regarding the failure to file Form DIN-3 by M/s INTERLINK EXPORTS LIMITED. This article explores the case, the alleged violation of Section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the registrar’s ruling, which resulted in no penalty being imposed.
Detailed Analysis
The case in question arose from the observation and complaint filed by Mr. Tej Kishan Raina, who noted that M/s INTERLINK EXPORTS LIMITED had not filed Form DIN-3 as required by Section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013. In response, the company and its officers in default were issued a show cause notice on March 11, 2022, highlighting the violation of Section 157.
The company, however, did not provide any response to the show cause notice, prompting the Registrar of Companies to issue an adjudication notice on June 16, 2022. This notice offered the company and its officers an opportunity to be heard on June 30, 2022. One of the directors in default, Mr. SUBHASH AGRAWAL, expressed his inability to attend the hearing on the specified date. Subsequently, the hearing was rescheduled for July 15, 2022, and the company submitted its reply, asserting that Mr. Tej Kishan Raina had not furnished the DIN as required by Section 156 of the Companies Act, 2013. They requested the adjudication proceeding to be dropped.
During the hearing on July 15, 2022, company directors Mr. SUBHASH AGRAWAL and Mr. Nitesh Agarwal explained that the delay in filing the Annual Return and Balance Sheet for the years 2006 to 2010 was due to Mr. Tej Kishan Raina’s failure to provide the DIN.
The Registrar concluded that the company and its directors had not violated the provisions of Section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was established that Mr. Tej Kishan Raina had not provided the DIN as required by Section 156. The company possessed DIN-2 details of the complainant, which they intended to file with the relevant documents.
Conclusion
In a significant decision, the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, ruled that no penalty should be imposed in the matter of failure to file Form DIN-3. This decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant facts, including the failure of Mr. Tej Kishan Raina to provide the required DIN, which ultimately led to the delay in filing certain documents.
This case serves as an example of how regulatory authorities evaluate violations under the Companies Act, 2013, taking into account the circumstances and compliance with statutory requirements. In this instance, the registrar’s decision favored the company and its directors, relieving them of any penalty for the non-filing of Form DIN-3.
*****
Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur
In the matter of Companies Act 2013
And
In the matter of adjudication proceeding under section 454 (3) of Companies Act, 2013
And
In the matter of adjudication proceeding for the violation of section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013.
And
In the matter of
M/s INTERLINK EXPORTS LIMITED
Shri NARAYAN TUKARAM BADDI (CFO)
Shri ALOK NARAYAN BADDI (CEO)
Date of hearing- 15/07/2022
Fact of the Case
1. That it was noticed from the record and complaint filed by Mr. Tej Kishan Raina that company has not filed form DIN -3 in respect to intimation received from Mr. Tej Kishan Raina pursuant to requirement of section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. The aforesaid violation was taken up with the company and its officers in default vide show cause notice dated 11.03.2022 for violation of section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company has not furnished any reply of the aforesaid show cause notice.
3. This office vide adjudication Notice dated 16.06.2022 for violation of section 157 of the companies Act, 2013 given an opportunity of being heard on 30th June 2022 at 12.00 P.M. in the committee room of the 0/o Register of the Companies Corporate Bhawan, G – 6 & 7, Residency Area, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302001. One of director in default Mr. SUBHASH AGRAWAL vide letter dated 27.06.2022 has expressed his inability to attend the hearing on the aforesaid date. Hence, hearing of the matter was fixed for 15.07.2022 and intimated to Company and its directors accordingly. The Company has also furnished its reply vide letter dated 27.06.2022 submitting therein that Mr. Tej Kishan Raina has not intimated the DIN to the Company pursuant to requirement of section 156 of the Companies Act, 2013 and requested to drop the adjudication proceeding.
4. That during the course of hearing director of Company Mr. SUBHASH AGRAWAL and Mr. Nitesh Agarwal were present and submitted that delay in filing of Annual Return and Balance Sheet for the year 2006 to 2010 due to not providing the DIN by Mr. Tej Kishan Raina.
5. That DIN has not provided by Mr. Tej Kishan Raina pursuant to requirement of section 156 of the Companies Act, 2013. I am on conclusion that the provision of section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013 have not been violated by the Company and its directors. This office has forwarded the copy of complaint to the Company in which the DIN details of complainant was available. The Company also accepted this fact that they have details of the DIN-2 and informed this office that they will file the relevant documents to this office in this regard.
ORDER
“That keeping in mind all the relevant facts and submission made by the Company and its directors, the Company and its directors have not violated the provision of section 157 of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, no penalty imposed in the matter.”
Calculation table for penalty
|
Penalty imposed on company / director(s) |
No. of days default | Total Penalty ( in Rs.) |
Total / maximum penalty imposed |
| On company | Nil | Nil | Nil |
| On directors of the Company | Nil | Nil |
The matter has been stands disposed of with this order. Signed this on 25th day of August 2022.
Order No. 2218 to 2224
26.08.2022
C. M. Karl Marx
Registrar of companies, Rajasthan
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
