Appellant's Appeal Dismissed: Fine Imposed for Companies Act Non-Compliance

The appellant's appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act against an order by the NCLT, New Delhi, compounding offences under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013, and imposing a fine of Rs. 26,53,000/- for non-compliance with Section 166/96 of the Companies Act, 1956/2013 was dismissed. The NCLT, after considering the ROC's report, imposed the fine based on default days, reducing the maximum fine to 1/5th. The appellant's argument against the fine was rejected, with the Tribunal emphasizing the admission of guilt and the significant reduction in the imposed fine.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of offences under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Imposition of fine for non-compliance with Section 166/96 of the Companies Act, 1956/2013.
3. Appellant's argument against the imposed fine.

Summary:

Compounding of Offences:
The appeal was filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act against an order by the NCLT, New Delhi, which compounded offences under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT directed the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 26,53,000/- for non-compliance with Section 166/96 of the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The joint application for compounding was filed by seven applicants, including the company.

Imposition of Fine:
The appellant, along with the company and five others, admitted guilt under Section 96/99 of the Act. The NCLT, after examining the ROC's detailed report on defaults for various financial years, imposed fines based on the number of default days. The maximum fine calculated was Rs. 1,32,65,000/-, but the NCLT reduced it to 1/5th, imposing a fine of Rs. 26,53,000/- on the appellant.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that the NCLT erred in imposing the fine and incorrectly relied on a previous judgment. The appellant, being an Alternate Director, contended that he should not have been fined. The counsel for the ROC opposed the appeal, stating no apparent error in the NCLT's order.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant admitted the default and sought compounding. The NCLT had already reduced the fine significantly. The appeal was dismissed without any cost imposed.

---