TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anies Act, 2013 (in brief the Act) against the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in Company Petition CP No. 690/KB/2017. Whereby, allowed the compounding application subject to payment of compounding fees 50,000/-. 2. Brief Facts of this case are that the Respondent was the Director, for more than 20 Companies till 31.03.2015. The Respondent tendered his resignation as the Director of the Company M/s Fabius Properties Pvt. Ltd. the same was accepted by the Board of Directors of the Companies on 29.12.2015. However, the intimation of his resignation was sent to the Registrar of Companies vide Form DIR-12 on 10.02.2016. 3. On 27.01.2016 the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal sent sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the offence as held by this Tribunal, in the case of Company Appeal (AT) No. 249 of 2018 Registrar of Companies cum Official Liquidator, Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs Gyan Chandra Agarwal decided on 12.09.2018. The Appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 165(1) read with Section 165(3) of the Act, for a period of 272 days. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Act, he is liable for minimum fine prescribed for the violation i.e. Rs. 5000/- per day which comes to 13,60,000/-. Whereas Ld. Tribunal has imposed compounding fees Rs. 50,000/- which is less than the minimum prescribed in Section 165 (6) of the Act. Hence, the Appeal be allowed and Respondent be directed to pay minimum compounding fees. 8. On the other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Competent Authority will be justified in refusing to impose minimum penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute, for this purpose, he placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 1969 (2) SCC 627. and the Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Bhavesh Pabari (2019) 5 SCC 90. Learned Tribunal considering the mitigating circumstances imposed compounding fees Rs. 50,000/- as the offence is technical. Hence, the Appeal be dismissed. 11. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reads as under:- "(6) if a person accepts and appointment as a director in contravention of sub-section 1, he shall be punishable with fine which shall be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the contravention continues." 14. We have considered the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondent Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. (Supra) while dealing the provisions of Sales Tax Act, held that penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. In this case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dless of the manner in which the first question is answered, stands eclipsed by the penalty provisions contained in Section 15-A to Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act? 16. Thus, we are not convinced with the argument of Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Tribunal while dealing with under Section 441 (1) of the Act, can impose the compounding fees less than minimum which is prescribed for the offence. 17. The issue for consideration is, whether Tribunal can impose the compounding fees under Section 441 (1) of the Act, less than minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 165 (1) read with Section 165(6). 18. This Appellate Tribunal in the case of Registrar of Companies cum Liquidator, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Supra) held as under....