Blogmint Digital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Roc, Nct Of Delhi & Haryana
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 07 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning, though brief, rests on the following: where a compounding petition is pending and the defaults have been made good, the Tribunal, in fixing the compounded amount, may take into account the non-whole-time status of some directors and the company's status as a start-up company, and may reduce the fine accordingly; such discretionary reduction of the fine on compounding is not interfered with on appeal where the appellants show no ground on the merits to disturb it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Blogmint Digital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
ROC, NCT of Delhi & Haryana ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Sharma and Ms. Arpita Yadav, Advocates
ORDER
12.01.2018 The appellant(s) preferred petition under Section 441 of the
Companies Act, 2013 praying for compounding of the offences under Sections
92, 96 and 129 of the Companies Act, 2013. The said petition was routed
through the office of the Registrar of Companies along with their comments and
the ROC recommended the fine as per the provisions of law as follows :
"4. ... Accordingly ROC has recommended the fine as under:
U/s 92(5) of the Companies Act, 2013
S. No. Name of Applicant Fine u/s Default Amount 92(5) Period
1. Blogmint Digital 92(5) 28.02.2017 5,00,000/-
Private Limited To 12.09.2017 2. Mr. Deepak Mittal 92(5) 28.02.2017 5,00,000/- To 12.09.2017
Company Appeal (AT) No. 07 of 2018 2
3. Mr. Raman Mittal 92(5) 28.02.2017 5,00,000/-
To 12.09.2017
4. Mr. Irfan Ejaz 92(5) 28.02.2017 5,00,000/-
Khan To 12.09.2017
U/s 99 of the Companies Act, 2013
S. No. Name of Applicant Fine u/s Default Amount 99 Period
1. Blogmint Digital 99 30.12.2016 13,50,000/- Private Limited To 07.09.2017 2. Mr. Deepak Mittal 99 30.12.2016 13,50,000/- To 07.09.2017
3. Mr. Raman Mittal 99 30.12.2016 13,50,000/- To 07.09.2017
4. Mr. Irfan Ejaz 99 30.12.2016 13,50,000/- Khan To 07.09.2017
U/s 129 of the Companies Act, 2013
S. No. Name of Applicant Fine u/s Default Amount 129(7) Period
1. Mr. Deepak Mittal 129(7) 2015-16 5,00,000/-
2. Mr. Raman Mittal 129(7) 2015-16 5,00,000/-
3. Mr. Irfan Ejaz 129(7) 2015-16 5,00,000/-
Khan
Company Appeal (AT) No. 07 of 2018 3
2. The total amount recommended by the office of the RoC for the three
defaults thereby comes to Rs.23.5 lakhs on each of the appellant/Directors and
Rs. 18.5 lakhs on the company. As the default has been made good, the National
Company Law Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15th November, 2017
compounded the offence and brought down the fine as under:
S. No. Name of Fine U/s Fine U/s Fine U/s Total Applicant 92(5) 99 129
1. Blogmint Digital 1,00,000 2,50,000 3,50,000/-
Private Limited
2. Mr. Deepak Mittal 1,00,000 2,50,000 1,00,000 4,50,000/-
3. Mr. Raman Mittal 1,00,000 2,50,000 1,00,000 4,50,000/-
4. Mr. Irfan Ejaz 1,00,000 2,50,000 1,00,000 4,50,000/-
Khan
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) submits that the
Tribunal has not looked into the circumstances in which the defaults were
committed. He highlighted the circumstances and submitted that the Directors
are not whole time Directors and not recipient of any remuneration of the
company except one. The Directors have acted in accordance with law and also
filed provisional financial statement under Section 137 of the Companies Act,
2013.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and perused the
record. On consideration of the merit, we find as some of the Directors are not
regular Director, for three defaults the Tribunal has reduced total amount of fine
Company Appeal (AT) No. 07 of 2018 4
of Rs. 23.5 lakhs to Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Further, as the Company is a start-up
company and the Tribunal has taken a lenient view and brought down the fine
from Rs. 18.5 Lakhs to Rs. 3.5 Lakhs.
5. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No
cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/uk
Company Appeal (AT) No. 07 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free