9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) of Section 96 of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under Section 99 of Companies Act, 2013. The Act came into force on 01.04.2014. Hence, the period of violation is 01.04.2014 to 09.07.2017. RoC in his Report has mentioned the total amount of Penalty to be imposed on each Appellant which is 2,35,90,000/- however, the Ld. Tribunal has imposed Penalty on each Appellant 27,09,000/- Ld. Tribunal to maintain the consistency has to impose Penalty which is as per calculation maximum fine ₹ 2,35,90,000/-. 1/5th of the maximum amount is ₹ 47, 18,000/-. However, Ld. Tribunal has imposed Penalty ₹ 27, 09,000/- which is less than 1/5th of the Maximum amount - thus, Ld. Tribunal has undertaken a lenient view in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointed his nominees on the Board being the Appellant nos. 2 to 4. The Appellant Company could not comply the applicable compliances under the Companies Act for the year 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 including holding its Annual General Meetings. After taking bank account statements, the Company prepared the accounts and got the same audited and then conducted the Annual General Meeting on 10,07.2017. National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench vide its order dated 11.08.2017, inter-alia, directed the Company to apply for compounding of the non-compliances/delay in making compliances. In compliance of the directions, the Appellants filed compounding applications under Section 166 read with Section 621 (A) of Companies Act, 1956 (Presently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged in a Civil Suit and Civil Court has granted injunction against the appointment of Appellants as directors. However, subsequently the injunction vacated in Appeal by the High Court of Delhi. Appellants wrote to the RoC on 08th November, 2012 explaining that due to requirement of signature of an ex-director, the Appellants could not register their appointment with the RoC. Hence, they are unable to take further steps necessary to comply the compliances of the Appellant Company. 5. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that in December, 2012 RN Marwaha Company filed Company Petition against the Appellant No. 1 for winding up. However, subsequently Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was pleased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has imposed the Penalty on appellants total ₹ 1,08,36,000/- which is unreasonable and disproportionate to the default. Particularly, when the default has already been made good. Hence, considering the extreme circumstances that existed in the present case, penalty amount may be reduced. 9. On the other hand, Learned Senior Panel Counsel, Central Government submits that as per the calculation, every appellant is liable to pay Penalty total ₹ 2,35,90,000/- whereas the Tribunal has taken a very lenient view and imposed only Penalty of ₹ 27,09,000/- on each Appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Tribunal has not considered the mitigating circumstances and imposed an exorbitant fine. 10. After hearing le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding any offence and are required to notice the precedence, i.e. earlier order if any passed in one or other case for similar offence. 12. Depending on nature of offence and its gravity and if it is pleaded by the applicant or reported by Registrar of Companies, the Tribunal is required to notice the relevant factors while compounding any offence, such as:- (i) The gravity of offence; (ii) The act is intentional or unintentional; (iii) The maximum punishment prescribed for such offence, such as fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. (iv) The report of the Registrar of Companies. (v) The period of default. (vi) Whether petition for compounding is suo moto before or after notice from Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any and nor did affect public interest, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly brought down the penalty which is less than 1/5th of the maximum amount. In this background no interference is called for against the impugned order. 13. In this appeal, the same grounds are taken for reducing the amount which were taken in the Company Appeal No. 50 of 2016. 14. Ld. Tribunal to maintain the consistency has to impose Penalty which is as per calculation maximum fine ₹ 2,35,90,000/-. 1/5th of the maximum amount is ₹ 47, 18,000/-. However, Ld. Tribunal has imposed Penalty ₹ 27, 09,000/- which is less than 1/5th of the Maximum amount. Therefore, we are of the view that Ld. Tribunal has undertaken a lenient view in impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
