Compounding application dismissed due to jurisdictional issues & procedural non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the compounding application under the Companies Act, 2013 was not maintainable due to jurisdictional issues and procedural non-compliance with Section 441. The applicant's argument for jurisdiction based on relocation of registered offices was dismissed, as the alleged offences occurred within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge in Bangalore. Additionally, the application did not follow the mandated procedure of being forwarded by the Registrar and lacked permission from the Special Court for compounding. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application on these grounds.

---

---

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.

---