TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Compounding application dismissed due to jurisdictional issues & procedural non-compliance.</h1> The Tribunal held that the compounding application under the Companies Act, 2013 was not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues and procedural ... Compounding of the offence under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 - whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this application? - Held that:- Applicant alleged to have committed the offence under Section 165(1) and 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 within jurisdiction of Special Judge (Commercial Court) Bangalore. Ld. Special Judge at Bangalore is dealing with criminal case against the applicant. This Tribunal cannot get jurisdiction to consider the application for compounding of the offence against the applicant only because he shifted registered offices of some of his companies from Bangalore to Kolkata. This application for compounding of the offence for which trial is pending before Special Judge (Commercial Court) Bangalore is not maintainable before this Tribunal at Kolkata. Apart form above, this application is not maintainable for other reasons. Section 3(a) of Section 441 states that every application under this Section shall be made to the Registrar who shall forward the same together with his comments to the Tribunal. In this case, this application is filed before this Tribunal by the applicant only and it has not been forwarded by the ROC. Sub-Section 6(a) of Section 441 of the Act also makes it clear that any offence which is punishable under this Act, with imprisonment or fine or both shall be compoundable with permission of the Special Court. In this case, no such permission from the Special Court is on record. For this reason also, the application is not maintainable. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider the compounding application.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013.Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider the compounding application:The applicant, facing criminal prosecution under Section 165(1) and 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 in Bangalore, sought compounding of the offence before the Tribunal in Kolkata. The applicant argued that since he now resides in Kolkata and some registered offices of the companies in question have shifted to Kolkata, the Tribunal in Kolkata has jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal noted that the alleged offences were committed within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge in Bangalore, where the criminal case is pending. The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction merely because of the relocation of some registered offices to Kolkata. Therefore, the application for compounding of the offence before the Kolkata Tribunal was deemed not maintainable.Issue 2: Compliance with the provisions of Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013:The Tribunal highlighted certain procedural deficiencies in the application for compounding. Section 441 mandates that every application for compounding an offence should be made to the Registrar, who then forwards it to the Tribunal. In this case, the application was directly filed before the Tribunal without being forwarded by the Registrar. Additionally, Sub-Section 6(a) of Section 441 requires permission from the Special Court for compounding offences punishable with imprisonment or fine. The absence of such permission in this case further rendered the application not maintainable. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application on the grounds of procedural non-compliance and lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the application for compounding of the offence under the Companies Act, 2013 was not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues and non-compliance with procedural requirements outlined in Section 441. The order was passed rejecting the application based on these grounds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
