M/S. Jaiguhan Venture Properties ... vs The Registrar Of Companies Tamil Nadu ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 46 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs under the Companies Act, 2013 must be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case; a costs order of Rs. 10,00,000/- is excessive where the company has been found to be carrying on its business for the purpose for which it was incorporated and has filed its audited financial statements and income tax returns, and it may be reduced accordingly to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 46 of 2023 (IA Nos. 477 & 478/2023) (Filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013) Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 26/04/2023 in CP/131/CHE/2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai In the matter of: M/s. Jaiguhan Venture Properties Private Limited ...Appellant V The Registrar of Companies, Chennai ...Respondent
Present : For Appellant : Mr. CS K. Gaurav Kumar For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocate ORDER
Virtual Mode) 24/05/2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2023
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai in
CP/131/CHE/2022. By which, while restoring the name of the Appellant
Company to the Register of the Registrar of Companies, cost of Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Ten Lakhs) has been imposed.
The grievance of the Appellant in this appeal is about the huge amount of
cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- which has been imposed despite the fact that finding
has been returned in paragraph 4 and 6 of the impugned order that the
Appellant Company is carrying on its business for the purpose for which it was
incorporated and had also submitted its Audited Financial Statement for the
year 2020-2021 along with Income Tax Report for the year 2019-2020.
CA (AT) (CH) No. 46 of 2023 2
Counsel for the Respondent has also put in appearance and argued that
cost has been rightly imposed but he could not justify the imposition of huge
cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the record,
are of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of this
case, imposition of cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- is highly excessive, therefore, we
dispose of this appeal with modification of the amount of cost from Rs.
10,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Rest of the impugned order shall remain as it
is.
With these observations, the present appeal is hereby disposed of.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
sr/md
CA (AT) (CH) No. 46 of 2023
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