9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 619 - AT - Companies LawCompounding of offences - imposition of fines on Ishwarlal Jariwala who died after the Impugned Order was passed - Held that - We are of the view that delays in compliance of the provisions of Companies Act regarding submission of Returns and Forms are source of mischiefs in various instances. These lapses need to be viewed seriously. Even if on facts in a given case, leniency may be shown, it cannot be so much that fear of law gets taken away. There is no illegality in the Impugned Order - We do not think that for the misconduct, as noticed in the present Appeals, further leniency is required to be shown - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Compounding of offences under the Companies Act - different provisions. 2. Applicability of fines and penalties for non-compliance with Companies Act provisions. 3. Reduction of fine imposed on deceased individual post-judgment. Issue 1: Compounding of offences under the Companies Act - different provisions In the case before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, two Appeals were consolidated concerning compounding of offences under the Companies Act but under different provisions. The Appeals stemmed from Impugned Orders by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, related to compounding. The Appellants, along with another individual, had sought compounding in both cases. The Appeals argued that they had taken corrective actions promptly upon discovering the lapses, such as appointing a Company Secretary and filing necessary forms with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). However, the NCLT imposed fines that the Appellants deemed excessive. The Appellants contended that they had proactively approached the ROC for rectification, suggesting leniency in imposing fines. The Appellants further sought a reduction in the fines imposed, emphasizing their voluntary compliance efforts. Issue 2: Applicability of fines and penalties for non-compliance with Companies Act provisions The first Appeal (CA 415 of 2018) challenged the Impugned Order related to a violation of Section 303(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellants argued that they had rectified the oversight promptly upon being informed by the Company Secretary and had voluntarily applied for compounding. However, the NCLT imposed fines amounting to ?17,62,800, which the Appellants considered excessive, given their proactive approach. The Appellants emphasized that the fines would pose a significant burden on the Company and Directors. During the arguments, the Appellants' Counsel acknowledged the correctness of the fine calculations but sought leniency due to the Company's lack of a Company Secretary until 2017. The ROC supported the Impugned Orders, asserting that the fines were reasonable and aligned with the legal provisions. The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the Companies Act to maintain transparency and prevent misconduct. The Tribunal noted that while leniency could be considered in specific cases, it should not undermine the enforcement of the law. The second Appeal (CA 416 of 2018) contested the Impugned Order concerning a violation of Section 269(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellants argued that the penalties should align with the provisions of the old Act rather than the new Act, resulting in reduced fines. They highlighted their efforts to rectify the non-compliance promptly upon discovering the lapse. The Appellants sought a reduction in the fines imposed, emphasizing the financial burden and the voluntary nature of their compounding application. The NCLAT examined the fines imposed, considering the Appellants' arguments, but ultimately upheld the NCLT's decision, emphasizing the seriousness of compliance lapses and the need for strict enforcement to prevent misconduct. Issue 3: Reduction of fine imposed on deceased individual post-judgment Regarding the request to reduce the fine imposed on the deceased individual, Ishwarlal Jariwala, the NCLAT noted that the Appeal was not filed by Jariwala's legal representatives. The Appellants did not provide any grounds for interference based on Jariwala's demise post-judgment. The Tribunal found no merit in the request to reduce the fine specifically imposed on Jariwala, given the circumstances. Consequently, the NCLAT rejected both Appeals, emphasizing the lack of substance in the arguments presented and made no orders as to costs. This detailed summary provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment, addressing all relevant issues and key points discussed in the case.
|
