https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460583 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. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Feb 2025 18:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460583 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460583