F. No:9/25/ADJ/SEC.85 of 2013/ROC(B)/RD(SER)/2025 BEFORE THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTH EAST REGION MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, HYDERABAD IN THE MATTER OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 IN THE MATTER OF SDU ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

• J M/s. SDU ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED #1/23, Raja Mansion, 12 Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru — 560003.

• 2.Mr. Umesh Hingorani

  • #1/23, Raja Mansion, 12™ Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleshwaram, . Bengaluru — 560003. Mrs. Shambhavi Hingorani, 28, 9th Main Road, 3 Cross, Near Union Bank of India, RMV Extension, Sadashiva Nagar, Bengaluru — 560080. . .

3. Mrs. Shambhavi Hingorani,

lites ADDellants

Date of hearing: 03.07.2025 Present: Mr. Harshavardhan R Boratti, PCS

ORDER

1. M/s. SDU ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED has filed an appeal under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 along with the above appellants in e- form ADJ vide SRN AB4181573 dated 22.05.2025 against the adjudication order issued vide F.No. ROCB/Adj.454-85/SDU Estates/Co.No.059785/2025 dated 24.03.2025 under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with section 85. of the Companies Act, 2013: passed by the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore.

_

2. Registrar of Companies in his Adjudication order dt. 24.03.2025 has stated after considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the company and its directorsaré liable to penalty as prescribed under Section 86 of the tefFos08onark80,75 “eS

Act for violation ofrN Companies Act, 2013. Further, Registrar \ene oJ

of Companies, Bangalore passed an order dated 24.03.2025 after hearing Mr. Harshavardhan R Boratti on 06.03.2025 by fixing a penalty as under:

M/s. SDU Estates Private Limited | Rs.5,00,000 Mr. Umesh Hingorani, Director | Rs.50,000 Ms. Shambhavi Hingorani Rs.50,000

• Rs.5,00,000/Rs.50,000/Rs.50,000

3. The matter was heard on 03.07.2025. Mr. Harshavardhan R_ Boratti, Company Secretary in practice/Authorised representative has attended the personal hearing on behalf of the applicants on 03.07.2025

4. After hearing the Authorised representative, it was concluded that the Company has duly maintained the registrar of charges annexed to the Appeal.

5. As the order of the AO does not state the error in the same, there is no apparent violation and the order of AO is to be set aside.

==> picture [359 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> Issued on this 2&* day of August, 2025.<br>__: fil. iN<br>“Sot SOury AS<br>fe aa wHTaH/ RICHA KUKREJA<br>\e “,. » ', REGIONAL DIRECTOR(S.E.R.)<br>eo eT quate /HYDERABAD<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Copy for information and necessary action to:

1. Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Bangalore, Karnataka.

,

2. The Joint Secretary, E-Governance Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi.

, i EES NEM FHT) RICHA KUKREIA : pss we ee ats feréerr (Wa.S.3i%.)/ . be ce $f +) REGIONAL DIRECTOR(S.E.R.) ere, Sauata HYDERABAD Page2 of 2