top of page

Case Analysis N S J L Nidhi Ltd vs The Regional Director (Wr) Ministry Of Corporate Affair And Anr 2026 BHC-AS 22465

Synopsis

A nidhi company filed returns of allotment (Form PAS-3) but did not separately certify the attached list of allottees as required under Rule 12(2) of the Allotment Rules, although the affirmation clause in Form PAS-3 vouched for its correctness. The adjudicating officer imposed the maximum penalty of ₹1 lakh per default on the company and on each director separately, multiplying the penalty by the number of directors. The bombay high court held that section 39(5) is neither a fixed penalty provision nor a minimum penalty provision. Relying on the supreme court’s three-judge bench decision in bhavesh pabari (interpreting identically worded section 15-a of the sebi act), the court ruled that the adjudicating officer has discretion to consider aggravating and mitigating factors under rule 3(12) of the penalty rules. The impugned order was modified: the penalty was reduced to ₹1 lakh per default, payable jointly and severally by the company and all directors, instead of multiplied by the number of directors.


Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 27th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 10782 of 2024 (unreported)

Core Law: Companies Act, 2013 – Section 39 (allotment of securities), Section 39(5) (penalty for default), Section 2(60) (officer who is in default); Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Rules, 2014 – Rule 3(12); Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 15-A (cognate provision).


1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay civil appellate jurisdiction

Writ petition no. 10782 of 2024

N.s.j.l nidhi ltd throu. its rohit k bhamburdekar and ors. (petitioners) vs. The regional director (wr) ministry of corporate affair and anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice somasekhar sundaresan

Date: 27th april, 2026


2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

  • Companies act, 2013 – section 39(4) (return of allotment), section 39(5) (penalty for default), section 2(60) (officer who is in default), section 454(3) (remedial measures), section 454a (repeat violation)

  • Companies (prospectus and allotment of securities) rules, 2014 – rule 12 (return of allotment – form pas-3 and certification of allottee list)

  • Companies (adjudication of penalties) rules, 2014 – rule 3(12) (factors for adjudicating quantum of penalty: size of company, nature of default, injury to public interest, disproportionate gain, loss caused, repetition)

  • Securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 – section 15-a (penalty for failure to furni


... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.

🔒 Premium Legal Resource

This is a 20% curated summary of the judgment. Gain unrestricted access to our full database of expert case analyses, core legal frameworks, and downloadable analytical PDFs by upgrading to a Lawcurb membership. Join our legal network to unlock this entire record.
  • Picture2
  • Telegram
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 Lawcurb.in

bottom of page