ROC TAMIL NADU IMPOSES PENALTY FOR VIOLATING SECTION 92 AND SECTION 137 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
In this article, we will discuss the importance of complying with Section 92 and 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 along with latest Order for penalty levied by Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore (Ref: ROC/CBE/A.O./92&137/031419/2022).
Facts in brief:
Adjudication notice under Section 454 for the violations of Section 92 and 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 were issued to one of the Company named M/s Nulinz Education Private Limited having its registered office at Salem, Tamil Nadu to show cause for non-filing of Annual Return and Financial Statement for the FY 2019-2020. Previously, Adjudication notices issued was issued on 16/11/2022 to the Company and its Directors for non-filing of Statutory Returns but the Company has not filed Statutory Returns for which Show Cause Notice was issue.
Order:
Adjudicating Officer held that the offence committed is of serious nature since non-filing of Annual accounts by the Company has placed itself out of reach of stakeholders/regulatory authorities. The object of filing of Annual Return of company in MCA portal is in public interest, to enable the investor, public and whosoever interested in the company can access the fundamental information about the company and its management. Non-filing of this statutory return is not only violation of the provisions of the Act but result in denial of information to the various stakeholders, public in general.
As per Section 454 read with Rule 3(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 the reply to such notice shall be filed in electronic mode only within the period as specified in the notice. However, the company has not made any reply.
The total penalty of Rs.1,94,300 has been imposed on the Company along with 2 Directors for violating Section 92 and Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company and its Directors are directed to rectify the default immediately from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
We may think that the penalty should be much higher considering the default time period. The interesting part of the story is related to Section 446B of the Companies Act, 2013. The section provides for the lesser penalties for One Person Company or Small Companies. Therefore, in the above case the penal