9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its Annual Return along with the late fee, on 26 February 2015 i.e 109 days. The statutory provision Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 permits for filing belated return up to two hundred and seventeen days Thus considering the fact and circumstances of the present case and supreme court case in VLS. Finance Ltd. Versus Union of India and others [2013 (5) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT], we are of the view the reason explained by the petitioner company appears to be reasonable, plausible and are sufficient to grant leave for compounding of offence under section 441 of the Companies Act. Therefore, present CP is allowed and leave is granted as prayed for therein. - Company Petition 16/233/201508-12-2016 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2016 - Mr. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner Company has paid the prescribed fee for delay filing of Annual Return for the year 2013-14 in compliance with Section 403 of the 2013 Act. That the aforesaid omission on the part of the Petitioner Company was on account of oversight and is bona fide and unintentional. 7. That the Petitioner Council submits that the default of not complying with the requirement of the Companies Act is not a wilful default by the Petitioner Company end the violation has since been complied and overall Period of default from 08.11.2014 to 25.02.2015 i.e. 109 days. 8. That the Petitioner Company and its Directors acted bona-fide and diligently upon the said violation of Section 92 under the new Act, 2013, coming to their knowledge. The violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d four government nominees, who are not being paid any salary or dividend. It is submitted that petitioner company could not able to file its annual return within 60 days from the date of completion of its Annual General Meeting, because the members of Committee of the Administration were elected by election process on 10th September, 2014 only and however the annual return could be filed only on 26 Feb, 2015. The petitioner company explained the reason for the delay occurred as stated in Para 9 of the CP and the main reasons among other is that elected members of administration committee was not having DIN No., as they are either from proprietary/partnership firm. For obtaining DIN No., the petitioner company is required to obtain DSC a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted for obtaining DIN No. and those was a prerequisite for filing the Annual Return. Such procedural aspect took certain time resulting in delay in filing of the same. Hence, it cannot be assumed that the company was having deliberate intention for causing delay in filing of Annual Return and made violation of statutory provision of section 92 of the Companies Act. Moreover, the company has filed its Annual Return along with the late fee, on 26 February 2015 i.e 109 days. The statutory provision Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 permits for filing belated return up to two hundred and seventeen days. The relevant potion of the above referred section may be reproduced herein below:- 403. Fee for filing, etc. (1) Any document, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence punishable with imprisonment only or imprisonment and also with fine, is permissible to be compounded by the Company Law Board either before or after the institution of any prosecution. In view of Sub-section (7) of Section 621A, the criminal court also possesses similar power to compound an offence after institution of the prosecution. 16. Now the question is whether in the aforesaid circumstances the Company Law Board can compound offence punishable with fine or imprisonment or both without permission of the court. It is pointed out that when the prosecution has been laid, it is the criminal court which is in seisin of the matter and it is only the magistrate or the court in seisin of the matter who can accord permission to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, which is not permissible. 18. As is well settled, while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the court avoids rejection or addition of words and resort to that only in exceptional circumstances to achieve the purpose of Act or give purposeful meaning. It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that words, phrases and sentence are to be given their natural, plain and clear meaning. When the language is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted in an ordinary sense and no addition or alteration of the words or expressions used is permissible. As observed earlier, the aforesaid enactment was brought in view of the need of leniency in the administration of the Act because a large number of defaults are of technical nature an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
