TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NT Justice Jarat Kumar Jain. The Appellant Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and its three Directors filed this Appeal against the order dated 19.07.2019 whereby National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed the Compounding Application subject to pay the Penalty of Rs. 27,09,000/- by each appellant total Rs. 1,08,36,000/-. 2. The Appellant Company was incorporated on 15th March, 2007 as a Pvt. Ltd. Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 in the State of Telangana (Formerly State of Andhra Pradesh). The Appellant No. 1 Company is subsidiary of Quinn Logistics Sweden AB. The Sweden Quinn Logistics Company was placed in bankruptcy due to debts owed to Irish government owned Bank Irish Bank Resolution Corporation on 6th July, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Appellant Company and its directors are liable to be penalized under Section 168 of Companies Act, 1956 for the violation of Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956 the violation continued up to 31.03.2014 thereafter, they are liable to be penalized under Section 99 of Companies Act 2013 for violation of the Sub-Section (1) Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2013 with effect from 01.04.2014. Ld. Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the Compounding Applications subject to pay the penalty as indicated above. Being aggrieved with this order, Appellants filed this Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 appointed as Directors at the instance of bankruptcy receiver. Therefore, the erstwhile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, therefore, directors were not able to get the Bank Statement to prepare the accounts as they were not signatory of the bank accounts. In these circumstances, the Appellants could not comply the compliances under the Companies Act including holding its Annual General Meeting. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, it is evident that the delay in compliances was neither intentional nor due to any ignorance of the management of the Company but due to factors beyond its control. 8. It is further submitted that the Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are professional, have no personal interest in the appellant company, they are appointed as nominees of the Swedish receiver. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that while imposin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame into force on 01.04.2014. Hence, the period of violation is 01.04.2014 to 09.07.2017. RoC in his Report has mentioned the total amount of Penalty to be imposed on each Appellant which is 2,35,90,000/- however, the Ld. Tribunal has imposed Penalty on each Appellant 27,09,000/- 12. This Tribunal in the case of Company Appeal (AT) No. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of 2016 decided on 28th February, 2017 held as under: "11. We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s) that while compounding any offence the Tribunal is required to notice different factors, such as grounds taken by the applications, nature of offence, etc. There should be consistence in compounding similar offence, if the defaulters are similarly situated and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x x x 15. x x x x x x x x Company Appeal No. 50 of 2016 16. In this appeal the allegation relates to contravention of Section 166 of Act 1956. The annual General Meetings of the company were not held regularly. The maximum fine for the period from 1st January, 2011 to 30th November, 2015 was calculated as per Section 168 of Act 1956 which stipulates Rs. 2500/- per day fine rate and fixed fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The total comes to Rs. 54,72,500/- to be paid by each three defaulters. 17. In this case the Tribunal has deemed it sufficient to impose a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs on each of the defaulting parties which is less than 1/5th of maximum amount. 18. In this appeal, as we find that the appellants have only taken plea that the vio....