9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g into force the provisions under Section 165(1) of the Act, he cannot hold Directorship in more than 20 companies and Directorship in more than 10 Public Companies, at the same time. As per the Section 165 (3) of the Act, till 31.03.2015 Respondent was required to resign from the Directorship of the Companies more than the limits specified in sub- Section 1 of Section 165 of the Act, within the specified period. The Respondent has vacated the Directorship of three Companies. However, after receipt of the notice from the Appellant the Respondent has resigned from the Directorship of four Companies on 22.02.2016 and there is nothing on record to presume that the Respondent violated the provisions on a bonafide belief. The conduct of Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in Company Petition No. 190/KB/2018. Whereby allowed the compounding application subject to payment of compounding fees ₹ 25,000/-. 2. Brief Facts of this case are that Respondent Sabyasachi Bagchi was holding Directorship of 17 Companies on 01.04.2014 when section 165 (1) of the Act, came into force. However, he vacated directorship of three companies during the period of 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. After receipt of the notice from Appellant the Respondent has resigned from the Directorship of four Companies on 22.02.2016, thus, the Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 165(1) of the Act, for a period of 01.04.2015 to 21.02.2016 i.e. 326 days. The reply of show cause notice of Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2016 i.e. 326 days. However, in the impugned order the period of default is shown 21 days only and Learned Tribunal has imposed compounding fees of ₹ 25,000/-. The Tribunal has ignored the provisions of sub-Section 6 of Section 165 of the Act, and directed to deposit compounding fees less than a minimum prescribed for the offence. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reduce the fine less than the minimum prescribed for the offence. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Company Appeal (AT) No. 249/2018 Registrar of Companies cum Official Liquidator Vs. Gyan Chandra Agarwal order dated 12.09.2018. it is further, submitted that the Tribunal should have imposed minimum compounding fees i.e. &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT Delhi and Haryana (C.A (AT) No. 49 to 53 of 2016 decided on 28.02.2017 held that: 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 Registrar of Companies or after imposition of the punishment or during the pendency of a proceeding. (vii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectorship in more than 20 companies and Directorship in more than 10 Public Companies, at the same time. As per the Section 165 (3) of the Act, till 31.03.2015 Respondent was required to resign from the Directorship of the Companies more than the limits specified in sub- Section 1 of Section 165 of the Act, within the specified period. The Respondent has vacated the Directorship of three Companies. However, after receipt of the notice from the Appellant the Respondent has resigned from the Directorship of four Companies on 22.02.2016 and there is nothing on record to presume that the Respondent violated the provisions on a bonafide belief. The conduct of Respondent shows that he acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. 12. Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rar of Companies, Jaipur referred to sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads as follows: 165(6). If a person accepts an appointment as a director in contravention of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the contravention continues. 3. It is submitted that though the Tribunal had noticed the aforesaid provision and the punishment attributed for the default pursuant to the provision but notwithstanding the minimum quantum of fine imposed, the impugned order has been passed. 4. Mr. Suresh Sharma, Practicing Company Secretary appearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
