Directors cannot compound Section 185 inter-corporate loan offence without filing proper compounding applications under Companies Act

The NCLAT Chennai dismissed an appeal by two directors seeking to compound an offence under Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding inter-corporate loans between HPE and HPEG. The RoC had identified the appellants as officers in default for the violation during the relevant period but noted they had not filed compounding applications. The appellants argued the prohibition under Section 185 did not apply due to exceptions, and that one director had resigned before loan repayment. The NCLAT held that as directors, the appellants fell within the definition of officers under Section 2(59) and were liable under Section 450. The tribunal's direction to prosecute the directors for failing to apply for compounding was upheld as legally sound.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the advancement of an inter-corporate loan by Hewlett Packard Enterprise India Private Limited (HPE) to Hewlett Packard Enterprise GlobalSoft Private Limited (HPEG) constituted a violation of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013.
• Whether the appellants, as directors of HPE, were liable for the non-compliance with Section 185 under the unamended provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
• Whether the amendments to Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013, which introduced new penalties, could be applied retrospectively to impose liability on the appellants.
• Whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity to present their case, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
• Whether the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) order directing prosecution against the appellants was legally valid.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Violation of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013, prohibits companies from advancing loans to directors or to any other person in whom the director is interested, unless certain conditions are met. The appellants argued that the loan was advanced in the ordinary course of business and at an interest rate not lower than the Reserve Bank of India's prescribed rate, thus falling under the exceptions provided in the unamended Section 185.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the loan was advanced to a company where a common director existed, which constituted a violation of Section 185. The Tribunal found that the appellants, as directors, were responsible for the contravention.
• Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal considered the minutes of the board meeting where the loan was approved and the subsequent repayment of the loan by HPEG. The Tribunal also noted the resignation of the common director from HPEG.
• Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of Section 185 and concluded that the loan transaction did not meet the exceptions and thus constituted a violation.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued that the loan was not prohibited under the unamended Section 185, and even if it was, they were not liable as directors for the company's non-compliance. The Tribunal rejected these arguments, emphasizing the directors' role in approving the loan.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that there was a violation of Section 185, and the directors were liable for the non-compliance.

2. Liability of Directors under the Unamended and Amended Section 185

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellants cited case law to argue that substantive law changes, such as the amendment to Section 185, should not be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the amendments introduced new penalties for future cases but did not create a new offence. The Tribunal applied the residuary provisions of Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013, to affix liability on the directors.
• Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal considered the timeline of the loan transaction and the subsequent amendment to Section 185, which came into effect after the loan was repaid.
• Application of law to facts: The Tribunal determined that the directors were liable under the unamended Section 185, as the liability existed at the time of the loan transaction.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued against retrospective application of the amended section. The Tribunal found that the liability for the violation existed under the unamended section and was enforceable.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the directors were liable for the violation under the unamended Section 185, and the amendments did not apply retrospectively to absolve them of liability.

3. Fair Opportunity and Principles of Natural Justice

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellants cited principles of natural justice, arguing they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the appellants were given sufficient opportunity to present their case, and the proceedings were conducted fairly.
• Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellants were aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
• Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and found that the appellants were not denied a fair hearing.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued that they were not heard adequately. The Tribunal found that the procedural requirements were met.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice principles, and the appellants had a fair opportunity to present their case.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that directors are liable for violations of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013, and that amendments introducing new penalties do not absolve directors of liability for past violations.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the NCLT's order to prosecute the appellants for non-compliance with Section 185 and imposing fines on the company and its managing director.

---