Compounding under the Companies Act requires proper routing and Special Court permission; Kolkata Tribunal lacked jurisdiction here.

Compounding of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 requires compliance with the statutory procedure, including filing through the Registrar for forwarding to the Tribunal. Where prosecution for alleged contraventions was already pending before the Special Court at Bangalore, the Kolkata NCLT did not acquire jurisdiction merely because some registered offices had shifted there. Offences punishable with imprisonment or fine are compoundable only with the Special Court's permission, and no such permission was on record. The application was therefore not maintainable before the Kolkata Tribunal and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for compounding of offences under the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable before the Tribunal at Kolkata when the prosecution was pending before the Special Court at Bangalore, and when the application had not been routed through the Registrar.

Analysis: The application arose from alleged contravention of section 165(1) and section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 441 permits compounding of specified offences, but the statutory scheme requires an application to be made to the Registrar for forwarding to the Tribunal, and offences punishable with imprisonment or fine are compoundable only with permission of the Special Court. Since the criminal prosecution was already pending before the Special Court at Bangalore, shifting of some registered offices to Kolkata did not confer jurisdiction on the Kolkata Tribunal. The application was also not shown to have been filed through the Registrar, and no permission of the Special Court was on record.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable before the Tribunal at Kolkata and was liable to be rejected.

---