Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (1) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 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. - CO.A(SB) 58/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2017 - MR. JAYANT NATH J. Appellant Through Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Niraj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and thereafter upto 31.12.2012. Meeting was actually held on 11.4.2013 which is stated to be the earliest possible date when all information could be gathered, corrected and collated. The balance sheet and profit and loss account was accordingly submitted to ROC on 10.5.2013 i.e. within one month of AGM. In the meantime, ROC is said to have issued a Show Cause Notice on 29.1.2013 for defaults under the Companies Act relating to failure to placing the Annual Accounts and balance sheet of the company before the AGM and then to the ROC, as required under section 159 of the Companies Act. ROC also thereafter filed a complaint in this regard to CMM Tis Hazari Courts for offences under section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is pending adj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the court had declined to permit the compounding application, the Company Law Board dismissed the present application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the order of the NCLAT where it is alleged that the main culprit who is behind the entire fraudulent transaction, namely, Shri Shubhinder Singh Prem had filed a similar petition under section 621A for compounding of various offences under the Companies Act. The NCLT had dismissed the application. The NCLAT, however, noted the plea of the Registrar of Companies that they have no objection if the offences are compounded subject to outcome of the investigation conducted by SFIO. It was also noted th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fine is an alternative to imprisonment it is well within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to compound the offences. The NCLT in its judgment itself noted the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.L.S. Finance Limited vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 278 which reads as follows:- 15. From the conspectus of what we have observed above, it is more than clear that an offence committed by an accused under the Act, not being an offence 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tution of any prosecution whereas the criminal court has no power to accord permission for composition of an offence before the institution of the proceeding. The legislature in its wisdom has not put the rider of prior permission of the court before compounding the offence by the Company Law Board and in case the contention of the Appellant is accepted, same would amount to addition of the words with the prior permission of the court in the Act, which is not permissible. ........ 8. Hence, 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. 9. It is also manifest from the aforesaid judgment of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates