Question

In 2024, "Zenith Tech Ltd" was penalized by the Adjudicating Officer (A

Q: Answer-In 2024, 'Zenith Tech Ltd' was penalized by the Adjudicating Officer (AO) under Section 454 for fail...

Explanation This is a nuanced trap. While Section 451 deals with convictions usually by a Special Court for criminal offences, the legislature realized that many offences were shifted to an In-House Adjudication Mechanism IAM . Therefore, they introduced Section 454A Penalty for repeated default. It mirrors Section 451 by stating that if a second default happens within 3 years of an AOs order, the penalty shall be twice the amount. This distinguishes between Punishment Courts and Penalty Adjudicating Officers.

C seeks to apply Section 451 to double the penalty. The company argues that Section 451 only applies to "convictions" by a Court, not "penalties" by an AO. Which of the following is the most legally accurate statement?
O under Section 454 for failing to file a "Notice of Change in Situation of Registered Office" (Section 12). In 2026, the company repeats the same default. The Registrar of Companies (Ro

A The company is correct; Section 451 uses the word "convicted," which applies strictly to Special Courts under Section 435, not AO orders.

B Section 451 applies to both judicial convictions and administrative penalties, as the "Company Law Tribunal" has unified these jurisdictions.

C Under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020, Section 454A was introduced specifically to apply the "3-year repeat default" rule to administrative penalties (AO), paralleling Section 451.

D The 3-year rule applies, but only if the first offence resulted in imprisonment of an officer in default.

E The RoC cannot double the penalty unless the second default continues for more than 180 days.

Practice Next

In 2024, "Zenith Tech Ltd" was penalized by the Adjudicating Officer (A

Detailed Solution

More Civil and Criminal Laws Questions

Hey! Ask a query

Please Register/Login