Penalty for default of certain provisions
Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with penalty for default of certain provisions. 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 on The Act came into force on 01 Apr 2014.
1[159. Penalty for default of certain provisions.-- 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.]
Section 159, The Companies Act, 2013 (Act 18 of 2013).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act creates two classes of persons: (i) those who commenced collective investment activities prior to 25.1.1995 ('proviso category') who may continue until obtaining registration under the regulations; and (ii) those who did not ('non-proviso category') who are absolutely barred from commencing such activities until obtaining registration. The bar for the non-proviso category is self-executing and operative from 25.1.1995 regardless of when regulations are framed. However, criminal prosecution for regulatory non-compliance (such as failure to apply for registration under Regulation 5) requires that the accused was a director/officer of the company at the time the specific breach occurred. A director who resigned before the deadline for compliance cannot be prosecuted for breaches arising on or after the resignation date. The complaint must clearly disclose whether the accused is charged as a non-proviso category violator (commencing activity without authority) or merely as an existing operator who failed to comply with procedural regulations. Absence of such clarity, combined with the accused having exited before the breach date, renders prosecution unsustainable.
On this section: Requirement for annual return containing particulars of 'past and present' directors. Court held annual return cannot override Form-32 resignation filing as annual return includes both past and present directors and cannot serve as evidence of current directorship absent clarification.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… According to Shri Singh, the appellant, by virtue of being an executive director from 1993, was, therefore, clearly a promoter within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. He also referred to and relied upon Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956, which requires certain particulars to be furnished by companies in their annual return. What is conspicuous by its absence is the fact that there is no requirement to disclose who the promoters of a company are. This has since been changed, for in the Companies Act, 2013, Section 92(1)(e) …
-
… According to Shri Singh, the appellant, by virtue of being an executive director from 1993, was, therefore, clearly a promoter within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. He also referred to and relied upon Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956, which requires certain particulars to be furnished by companies in their annual return. What is conspicuous by its absence is the fact that there is no requirement to disclose who the promoters of a company are. This has since been changed, for in the Companies Act, 2013, Section 92(1)(e) …
Made under this section, and citing it
2 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 159
What have the courts held on Section 159 of the Companies Act?
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi (15 Jul 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Requirement for annual return containing particulars of 'past and present' directors. Court held annual return cannot override Form-32 resignation filing as annual return includes both past and present directors and cannot serve as evidence of current directorship absent clarification.
How do I find court cases under Section 159 of the Companies Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Companies Act 159, section 159 Companies Act, section 159 of the Companies Act. People searching for it also type companies law 159. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi (15 Jul 2016).
What should I read with Section 159 of the Companies Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 152 (Appointment of directors), section 155 (Prohibition to obtain more than one Director Identification Number), section 156 (Director to intimate Director Identification Number), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Notification authorizing officers for filing complaint under section 159 read with section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013 (2015), then Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Amendment Rules 2018 (2018).
When did Section 159 of the Companies Act come into force?
Section 159 of the Companies Act, cited as Companies Act 159, came into force on 01 Apr 2014, having been enacted on 29 Aug 2013. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions5089 words
- 143. Powers and duties of auditors and auditing standards1867 words
- 230. Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members1432 words
- 232. Merger and amalgamation of companies1416 words
- 149. Company to have Board of Directors1403 words
- 217. Procedure, powers, etc., of inspectors1390 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 16 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.