TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king waiver of cost imposed vide Order dated 20.02.2025. 2. It is submitted that the Ld. Arguing Counsel for the Petitioners, who is also a Standing Counsel for the Official Liquidator, was stuck in another Bench dealing with Company matter, on account of which he was unable to appear before this Court leading to imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- per person. It is submitted that non-appearance was neither intentional nor mala fide and the imposition of cost vide Order dated 20.02.2025 be set aside. 3. Submissions heard and record perused. 4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the cost imposed vide Order dated 20.02.2025 is hereby waived off. 5. The Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 63/2018, CRL.M.A. 258/2018 & CRL.M.A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. ACMM vide his Order dated 05.10.2017 without going into the merits of the case, permitted the compounding by imposing a fine of Rs. 2 lacs on each of the Petitioners. 12. The Impugned Order was challenged before the Ld. Sessions Judge on 02.08.2017 whereby the compounding fine was reduced from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.1.5 lacs. 13. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Ld. ASJ, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition, seeking quashing of the fine imposed while permitting compounding, on the grounds that the Petitioners were not the Directors at the time of alleged offence as they had already filed the resignations with the Board of Directors on 08.06.2011.However, the Board mischievously, intentionally and in negligence of their du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Haryana, (2017) 203 Comp Cas 165 wherein it was observed that while permitting compounding, the Court may take into notice the factors such as gravity of offence, whether act was intentional or unintentional, maximum punishment prescribed for such offence, the report of ROC, period of default, whether it has been made good, financial condition of the company and other defaulters, whether the offence is continuous or one time and whether similar offences have been committed or not and whether the act of defaulters was prejudicial to the interest of the members of the Company or in public interest. 18. It is submitted that none of these factors were not considered while imposing the fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs. It is therefore, submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to further decrease or waive the Fine amount. 22. All the contentions made in the Petition are denied. It is submitted that the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. Submissions heard and record perused. 24. The Petitioners had themselves filed an Application dated 14.12.2016 before the Ld. ACMM seeking compounding of the offence wherein it is specifically stated that they were the Directors of the Company. It was further stated by them that they had given their resignation on 08.06.2011 and submitted it to the Board of Directors, though it was never filed with the ROC. It is their own case that their resignation was forwarded to ROC in June, 2015 along with the Resignation Letters of the same day thereby belying the contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcise of discretionary power, in which there is no reasonable relationship between the objective which is sought to be achieved and the means used to that end or where punishments imposed by administrative bodies or inferior courts are wholly out of proportion to the relevant misconduct. 29. As per the prosecution, there was default in filing the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the financial year 2010-11 and 2012-13. The fine that could be imposed for non-compliance of Section 220 of the Act, is upto Rs. 500 per day. ROC had imposed fine @ Rs. 500 per day for 3835 days which came to Rs. 19,17,500/-. 30. Likewise, default in filing Annual Returns under Section 159 of the Act was for the period 2008-09 till 2012-13, which was ca....