9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 875 - HC - Companies LawComposition of certain offences - Held that - There are no reasons as to why the matter should not have been compounded. Merely because the court did not compound the matter cannot be a ground for the CLB to not compound the offence. As in the case filed by Shri Shubhinder Singh Prem 2018 (1) TMI 830 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI that ROC appears to have taken a stand that it has no objection to compounding of the offences where one of the co-accused is Shubinder Singh Prem. I see no reason as to why other appellants herein should also not be granted the same benefit as that of Shubinder Singh Prem. At best, the appellant herein are similarly situated as of Shubinder Singh Prem, if not better of. Even otherwise, the appellant has been able to place on record sufficient facts to prima facie justify as to why the delay took place in conveying the AGM and subsequent filing of the necessary documents before the ROC. In my opinion, it is a fit case where company law board ought to have allowed the petition under section 621A for compounding. Appeal is allowed. The alleged offences committed under section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 are compounded. ROC will communicate the compounding fees to the appellant.
Issues:
1. Impugning order of Company Law Board under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Challenging summons issued to appellant No.2 by SFIO. 3. Seeking relief of compounding of offences under section 159 of the Act for late filing of Annual Return for the Financial Year ending 31.3.2012. Issue 1: Impugning order of Company Law Board under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956: The appellant filed a petition under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to challenge the order of the Company Law Board dismissing their application under section 621A. The appellant cited financial irregularities in the company during the Financial Year 2011-12, leading to delays in holding the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Despite extensions granted by the ROC, the AGM was held on 11.4.2013, and relevant documents were submitted to the ROC. The Company Law Board noted a financial scam, pending investigations, and criminal complaints against the company, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's application for compounding. Issue 2: Challenging summons issued to appellant No.2 by SFIO: The SFIO conducted investigations and filed a complaint against the company under various provisions of the Companies Act & IPC. While appellants No.2 to 5 were not accused, summons were issued only to appellant No.2. The appellant challenged this issuance of summons, which was stayed by a higher court pending further proceedings. Issue 3: Seeking relief of compounding of offences under section 159 of the Act for late filing of Annual Return: The appellant sought relief under section 621A of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board for compounding offences related to the late filing of the Annual Return for the Financial Year ending 31.3.2012. The Company Law Board, considering the financial scam, pending investigations, and criminal complaints, dismissed the application for compounding. The appellant relied on a similar case where compounding was allowed, arguing that the delay in conveying the AGM was justified. The Court, referring to relevant legal provisions and judgments, allowed the appeal, granting compounding of the offences under section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, compounding the alleged offences under section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956. The ROC was directed to communicate the compounding fees to the appellant, to be deposited within six weeks. The ROC was further instructed to withdraw the pending complaint, clarifying that the compounding would not hinder ongoing investigations by SFIO or other legal proceedings against the appellants.
|
