Composite penalty orders need individual apportionment; undivided liability against multiple noticees was held unsustainable.

Where multiple noticees are found liable for penalty, the adjudication order must specify the amount attributable to each person with definite certainty so the order remains enforceable. A composite or undivided penalty imposed jointly and severally on a company and its directors, without apportionment, was held impermissible in law. The consolidated penalty order was therefore set aside as unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of penalty after hearing the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether a consolidated penalty could be imposed jointly and severally on multiple noticees without specifying the amount attributable to each person, and whether such an order was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The adjudication order imposed one consolidated penalty on the company and its two directors without indicating the specific penalty recoverable from each of them. Where more than one person is found liable, the liability must be stated with definite certainty so that the order is capable of execution. An order imposing a composite penalty on several persons jointly and severally, without apportionment, was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The consolidated penalty order was set aside as unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the question of penalty after hearing the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded on the legality of the penalty order, and the adjudicating authority was required to pass a fresh decision on penalty after hearing them.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple persons are liable to penalty, the adjudicating order must specify the penalty attributable to each person with certainty; a composite or undivided penalty order against all such persons is not enforceable in law.

---