ROC Mumbai adjudication: Penalty for wrong CFO appointment date in DIR-12
The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai I, has passed an adjudication order dated 12/06/2026 under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, imposing a monetary penalty on the Whole Time Director of KUKU TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED. The non-compliance arose from an inaccurate appointment date of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) reported in Form DIR-12, which was attributed to a clerical mistake. The order underscores that authorised signatories and certifying professionals carry full responsibility for the accuracy of information furnished in electronic forms and their attachments.
This order is an important reminder for companies and their officers that even minor discrepancies in statutory filings—such as a one-day error in an appointment date—can trigger penal consequences under Section 450 where no specific penalty is otherwise provided.
Background of adjudicating authority
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through Gazette Notification No. S.O. 831(E) dated 24/03/2015, appointed the undersigned Registrar of Companies as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014. The Adjudicating Officer is empowered to determine and impose penalties for contraventions under the Act and the rules made thereunder, wherever such contraventions do not carry a specific penalty provision elsewhere in the statute.
Company and officer involved
Company particulars
The proceedings relate to KUKU TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013/1956, bearing CIN U74999MH2018PLC312866. The company’s registered office is situated at:
07A101 AND 07A102, WEWORK K RAHEJA PLATINUM, PLOT NO 710G SAG BAUG, MAROL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHERI (E) MAROL NAKA MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA 400059
Officer in default
The officer identified as being in default in this matter is:
Mr. VINOD KUMAR MEENA, Whole Time Director, DIN: 06631333
He was the authorised signatory who digitally signed and certified the relevant Form DIR-12 in which the incorrect CFO appointment date was reported.
Relevant statutory provisions
General penalty under Section 450
The adjudication was carried out for violation of Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013. This provision acts as a residuary penalty clause and applies where no specific penalty or punishment is separately prescribed under the Act for a given contravention. The section states:
If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be [liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person].
In the instant case, Section 450 was invoked to penalise the contravention of Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.
Rule 8 of Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014
The contravention arises under Rule 8 pertaining to authentication and responsibility for electronic forms. The following provisions are particularly relevant:
Rule 8(1):An electronic form shall be authenticated by authorised signatories using digital signature.
Rule 8(3):The authorised signatory and the professional, if any, who certify e-form shall be responsible for the correctness of the contents of e-form and correctness of the enclosures attached with the electronic form.
The order hinges specifically on Rule 8(3), which assigns accountability to the person signing the form for any inaccuracies in both the contents and accompanying documents.