TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct') i.e. for compounding offences, passed the order for compounding the offence and directed the appellant to pay fine of Rs.26,53,000/-. By the said order the joint compounding application was disposed off. It is clarified that the joint application was filed by 7 applicants before the learned NCLT which included the company i.e. Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt Ltd. 2. The short fact of the case is that, as evident from the record, the appellant alongwith the Company and five others were held guilty under Section 96/99 of the Act. A joint application was filed before the Learned NCLT under Section 441 of the Act for compounding of offence for non-compliance of Section 166/96 of the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The said application was filed before the Learned NCLT by the company and six others which includes the appellant herein. In the application before the Learned NCLT the appellant was arrayed as Applicant No.6. The appellant stated before the learned NCLT that he held office of alternate director to Mr. Robert Dale Larson (applicant No.3) during the relevant period from 12th August, 2013 till 12th December, 2017 and was further appointed alternate director to Mr Robert Dale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he deposit of the compounding fee/amount, if any by the Applicants with the Central Government. iv) That the offence of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 166/96 of Companies Act, 1956/2013 may be compounded for all the Applicants jointly i.e. for Company and on behalf of all the officers-in-default (Applicants). v) That such other or further order(s) be passed, and directions be given as the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal/Regional Director, Northern Region/Special Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case. After filing of the said application, in view of provisions contained in the Act, the Learned NCLT called for a report from the ROC and ROC submitted a detailed report in respect of default for the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 in respect of all the applicants which are as follows:- For F.Y. 2012-13 Name of applicants Minimum Fine Maximum fine Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Ltd - Rs.50,000+ Rs.18,10,000 (2500 Fine Per day * 724 days)=Rs.18,60,000 Ms Aysel Melbye - Rs.50,000+ Rs.18,10,000 (2500 Fine Per da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day *730 days)=Rs.37,50,000 For F.Y. 2015-16 Name of applicants Minimum Fine Maximum fine Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Ltd - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Ms Aysel Melbye - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Mr. Robert Dale Larson - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Ms Vikram Bakshi - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Ms Madhurima Bakshi - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Mr Salil Gulati - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 Mr Devinder Kumar Jain - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.36,40,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 728 days)=Rs.37,40,000 For F.Y. 2016-17 Name of applicants Minimum Fine Maximum fine Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Ltd - Rs.1,00,000+ Rs.32,70,000 (Rs 5000 Fine Per day * 654 days)=....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, 2017. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade the Court that the Learned Tribunal has itself noticed that the appellant herein was only an Alternate Director and as such he was not required to be imposed any fine. It has further been argued that excessive fine has been imposed by the Learned Tribunal which requires to be interfered with. Ms Shankari Mishra, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of ROC and opposed the appeal. She submits that there is no apparent error in the impugned order and appeal is fit to be rejected. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties we have perused the materials available on record. The fact remains that it was a joint application filed by the applicant alongwith other six persons including the company in question under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the compounding of offences. From the materials on record particularly the application filed before the NCLT which was number as CP 155/441/ND/2020 it is evident that the appellant has admitted default and days of default to the extent of 2905 days was admitted by the appellant. At this juncture it would be apt to repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fault is made in holding a meeting of the company in accordance with section 96 or section 97 or section 98 or in complying with any directions of the Tribunal, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the case of a continuing default, with a further fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such default continues. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the appellant has committed default under Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for such default penalty is prescribed under Section 168 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 166 and Section 168 of Companies Act are reproduced hereinbelow:- Section 166 in The Companies Act, 1956 166. Annual general meeting. 1 (1) Every company shall in each year hold in addition to any other meetings a general meeting as its annual general meeting and shall specify the meeting as such in the notices calling it; and not more than fifteen months shall elapse between the date of one annual general meeting of a company and that of the next: Provided that a company may hold its fir....