Material Facts: The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai I, initiated adjudication proceedings under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013 against Mr. Kishore Ponnavolu for alleged violation of Section 155, which prohibits an individual already allotted a Director Identification Number (DIN) from applying for, obtaining or possessing another DIN. The proceedings arose from a suo motu adjudication application filed by the applicant on 12.06.2024.
The applicant stated that he already held DIN 08226069 from his tenure as a director in PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited. During the incorporation of Fidential Insurance Broker Private Limited and Prudelity 360 Technologies LLP in 2023, a consultant inadvertently applied for and obtained another DIN (10271633). On discovering the duplication, the applicant filed Form DIR-5 on 06.12.2023 for surrender of the duplicate DIN. He remained in possession of two DINs from 08.08.2023 to 06.12.2023.
Procedural History: A show cause notice dated 11.05.2025 was issued under Section 454 read with Section 159. The applicant submitted a reply on 19.05.2026 admitting possession of two DINs while explaining the circumstances leading to the duplication. An opportunity of e-hearing was granted and later rescheduled, but the applicant did not attend.
Legal Issue: Whether the applicant was liable to penalty under Section 159 for contravening Section 155 by possessing two Director Identification Numbers despite claiming that the duplicate DIN had been obtained inadvertently and voluntarily surrendered.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013
- Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013
- Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013
- Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014
Applicant’s Submissions
The applicant submitted that:
- the duplicate DIN was obtained inadvertently due to a bona fide mistake by the professional consultant handling incorporation filings;
- he had no intention of obtaining a second DIN;
- being a foreign national residing in the United States, he relied upon Indian professionals for statutory compliances;
- technical issues during the MCA portal transition also contributed to the error;
- immediately upon discovering the duplication, he voluntarily filed Form DIR-5 for surrender of the duplicate DIN;
- he himself approached the ROC through a suo motu adjudication application before any enforcement action;
- the default was purely technical, caused no public injury or wrongful gain, had been rectified voluntarily, and therefore deserved a lenient view.
Findings and Reasoning
The Adjudicating Officer noted that the applicant had admitted possessing two DINs and had voluntarily filed the adjudication application. The Officer held that surrender of the duplicate DIN through Form DIR-5 was not relevant for determining whether a default under Section 155 had occurred, as the applicant had admittedly possessed two DINs during the relevant period.
However, considering the applicant’s bona fide conduct, voluntary disclosure and mitigating circumstances, the Officer adopted a lenient approach while determining the quantum of penalty. The period of default was taken as 08.08.2023 to 06.12.2023, amounting to 121 days. Accordingly, a penalty of ₹10,000 for the first default and ₹20 per day for the remaining 120 days (₹2,400) was imposed, aggregating to ₹12,400.
Directions: The applicant was directed to pay the penalty within 90 days through the MCA e-Adjudication portal from personal sources. The order also provides that an appeal may be filed before the Regional Director, Mumbai, within 60 days of receipt of the order.
Final Decision: The ROC Mumbai I held that the applicant had contravened Section 155 by possessing two DINs and imposed a penalty of ₹12,400 under Section 159 after taking a lenient view in light of the voluntary disclosure and mitigating circumstances.
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/06-2026/MH/02369 | Dated: 24/06/2026
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. 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 KISHORE PONNAVOLU . [herein after known as individual] having DIN 08226069 and having its address at 628, WEST ROAD, NEW CANAAN CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES 68402513
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 12.06.2024 submitted by Mr. Kishore Ponnavolu, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) under Section 454 read with Section 159 for default under Section 155 of the Act on account of obtaining duplicate Director Identification Number (DIN).
Whereas Section 155 of the Act reads as follows:
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 stated that he was a director in PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited till 21.06.2022 with a DIN: 08226069 (hereinafter referred to as first DIN).
In the year 2023, he subscribed as a shareholder and first director in the Company namely Fidential Insurance Broker Private Limited and Prudelity 360 Technologies LLP respectively. The Applicant stated that during the incorporation the consultant applied for new DIN and obtained a DIN 10271633 (hereinafter referred to as Second DIN) for aforementioned Company / LLP. The Applicant stated that upon coming into knowledge he filed form DIR 5 vide SRN AA6322592 dated 06.12.2023.
Whereas the Applicant has further submitted that the duplicate DIN was obtained inadvertently and there is no injury to public interest and he was in possession of 2 DINs from 08.08.2023 to 06.12.2023.
Thus, the Applicant is in possession of two DINs in contravention of the provisions of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. An opportunity of being heard was granted by the Adjudicating Officer to the said noticee under the provisions of Section 454(4) of the Act on 03.06.2026 and rescheduled on 18.06.2026 at 12:51 PM (IST)
E. Order:
A. A Show Cause notice bearing ID: SCN/ADJ/09-2025/MB/02573 dated 11.05.2025 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.A reply of the noticee to the said Show Cause Notice was received on the E-adjudication portal on 19.05.2026. It is admitted fact that noticee is in possession of two DINs 10691400 and 10691428. However, noticee has attributed it to the unprecedented set of circumstances and submitted that: i. That the allotment of duplicate DIN bearing DIN 10271633 was completely inadvertent, unintentional, and occurred due to a bona fide oversight on the part of the consultant engaged for incorporation-related compliances. He has holding a valid DIN: 08226069 from previous tenure as a director in PNB Met life India Insurance Company Limited and had no intention to obtain or possess more than one DIN in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013.ii.That the duplicate DIN was applied for and obtained by a professional Consultant specifically appointed to handle the incorporation of Fidential Insurance Broker Private Limited and Prudelity 360 Technologies LLP. The application for a new DIN was made inadvertently by the said consultant during the SPICe+ filing process without any specific instruction to seek a fresh identifier, and this technical default occurred purely due to human error during the incorporation filings. iii. As a Foreign National residing in the United States, the noticee relied on the technical expertise and procedural guidance of appointed Indian professional consultants for statutory compliance. Being unfamiliar of the MCA-V3 portal and the “one person, one DIN” regulatory framework, he acted in good faith upon the technical execution of the filings managed by professional experts. iv. It is also pertinent to note that the duplicate DIN was generated during a period of transition in the Ministry?s digital infrastructure. The respondents consultants, while managing the incorporation through the SPICe+ web forms, encountered technical issue where existing DIN credentials were not automatically mapped to the new application. As a Foreign National, the Respondent?s reliance on the technical execution of these filings by local experts was both reasonable and a commercial necessity.v.Upon becoming aware of the duplicate allotment, the Applicant took prompt corrective action and voluntarily filed e-Form DIR-5 vide SRN AA6322592 dated 06.12.2023 for the surrender and deactivation of the duplicate DIN. This proactive rectification was completed within 120 days of the second DIN being generated, demonstrating my bona fide conduct and a proactive approach toward regulatory compliance. vi. That the Applicant voluntarily approached the Registrar through a suo-motu adjudication application dated 12.06.2024, before the initiation of any enforcement action or the issuance of the subject notice. The self-disclosure confirms that there was no mala fide intention, wrongful gain, concealment of facts, fraud, or suppression involved in the matter. C. Noticee has further submitted that: i. The default was purely technical and procedural in nature, and no prejudice or injury has been caused to any stakeholder, investor, creditor, regulatory authority, or public interest on account of this inadvertent duplication. The duplicate DIN was never utilized for any unlawful purpose, nor did it provide any disproportionate advantage or gain to me. That under the provisions of Rule 3(12) of the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014, the Adjudicating Officer is mandated to consider specific factors while determining the quantum of penalty. In the present case, as the entities involved are private structures with no public deposits and given that the default was a one-time technical slip causing zero injury to public interest, the imposition of a maximum penalty would be disproportionate to the nature of the contravention respondent further submits that there has been no disproportionate gain or unfair advantage as envisioned under the said Rules, which should be a primary consideration for the mitigation of the penalty amount. ii. That the Respondent holds that the contravention was not repetitive in nature. Having sought suo-motu adjudication immediately after rectification via the filing of Form DIR-5 (SRN AA6322592), the conduct of the Respondent aligns with the principles of voluntary compliance and high corporate governance. The law should distinguish between substantive defaults (such as fraud or suppression) and procedural defaults (such as the present clerical duplication), particularly when the latter has been rectified voluntarily prior to any detection by the regulatory authorities. iii. Considering the mitigating factors, specifically status as a Foreign National, the reliance on professional advice, the voluntary surrender of the DIN, and the absence of any public harm and hence, requested to take a lenient view and hence, the penalty be waived or reduced significantly in light of the voluntary disclosure and immediate corrective actions taken. D. Thus, an opportunity of being heard was granted by the Adjudicate to the said noticee under the provisions of Section 454(4) of the Act on 03.06.2026 and rescheduled on 18.06.2026 at 12:51 PM (IST) and notice bearing ID: EH/ADJ/06-2026/MH/01697 dated 04.06.2026 was issued for the same. E. Noticee did not attend the said E-hearing. F. On perusal of the instant suo motu adjudication application and submission of the Applicant, wherein, it has already been admitted that two DINs were applied, and notice was in possession of two DINs. It is also admitted that suo motu adjudication application was filed with the ROC. Surrender of DIN vide DIR-5 is not relevant for determination of default under Section 155 of the Act and it is also imperative to the ROC to adjudicate the default under Section 155 of the Act for the possession of two DINs by noticee as such default was brought to the notice of the Adjudicating officer by the noticee himself. Further, DIR-5 filed by the noticee vide SRN AA6322592 has BEEN approved on 06.07.2024.G.Adjudicating Officer is inclined to take a lenient view on account of circumstances under which noticee was in possession of two DINs. H. Thus, I am of the view that given the bonafide action on part of the Applicant in submitting the suo-motu adjudication application and the mitigating circumstances, the quantum of penalty shall be Rs. 10,000/- for first default and further penalty of Rs. 20/- for each day after the first during which such default continued. I. The period of default is considered from 08.08.2023 that is the date of obtaining second DIN till 06.12.2023 that is the date of filing E-form DIR-5 which amounts to 121 days. The Applicant shall be liable to a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for first default and Rs.20/- per day for further 120 days that is Rs. 2400/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred only) aggregating to Rs. 12,400/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Four Hundred only).J. 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, Show cause notice sent and reply received thereto, the Adjudicating Officer hereby imposes a penalty of Rs.12,400/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand Four Hundred only) under the penal provisions of Section 159 of the Act for the violation of provisions of Section 155 on the Applicant Director Mr. KISHORE PONNAVOLU (DIN: 08226069).
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
|
KISHORE PONNAVOLU . having DIN as 08226069 | NA | 12400 | 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 I
