Shefield Appliances Ltd. & Ors vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of Delhi & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No.213 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reduced the compounding fine under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013 to Rs.50,000 by reference to the company's income for the relevant year, holding that the quantum of the fine payable on compounding may be fixed having regard to the company's financial capacity. The fine under Section 137 is not reduced further where it has been computed at a fixed daily rate for the period of default; the Tribunal treated the daily-rate calculation as the measure of the penalty and declined to revisit it once the amount had already been reduced on compounding. Where the compounding applicant seeks reduction of an individual officer's fine but has already had the fine reduced in the impugned order, and the applicant does not pursue the reduction claim for the other officers, the Tribunal will not interfere with the order as it stands in relation to those officers.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shefield Appliances Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manan Batra, Advocate
ORDER
21.08.2018 The Appellant preferred the application under Section 441 of
the Companies Act, 2013 praying for compounding the offences under Section
92 and 137 of the Act, having defaulted in filing the Annual Return and Financial
Statements within the statutory period for the financial year 2014-2015. The
default has been made good as the Company has since filed its Financial
Statements on 12.05.2017 and its Annual Return on 10.05.2017, a fact
confirmed by the Registrar of Companies.
2. For the offence punishable under Section 92(5) penal provision is made
under Section 92(5) and for offences under Section 137, penal provision has been
made under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the ROC
Company Appeal (AT) No.213 of 2018 -2-
recommended the fine as under:-
"U/s 92 of the Companies Act, 2013
S.No. Name of Fine Default Amount Applicant u/s Period 92()
1. Shefield 92(5) 30.11.2015 to 5,00,000/-
Appliances 09.05.2017 Limited
2. Mr. Anil 92(5) 30.11.2015 to 5,00,000/- Kumar 09.05.2017 Agarwal
3. Mr. Ved 92(5) 30.11.2015 to 5,00,000/- Prakash Jain 09.05.2017
Mr. Kishan 92(5) 30.11.2015 to 5,00,000/- Lal Sharma 09.05.2017
U/s 137 of the Companies Act, 2013
S.No. Name of Fine Default Amount Applicant u/s Period 137
1. Shefield 137 30.10.2015 to 5,60,000/-
Appliances 11.05.2017 Limited
2. Mr. Anil 137 30.10.2015 to 5,00,000/- Kumar 11.05.2017 Agarwal
3. Mr. Ved 137 30.10.2015 to 5,00,000/- Prakash Jain 11.05.2017
4. Mr. Kishan 137 30.10.2015 to 5,00,000/- Lal Sharma 11.05.2017
"
Company Appeal (AT) No.213 of 2018 -3-
3. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (hereafter referred as
'Tribunal') by impugned order dated 17th May, 2018 compounded the offence and
brought down on to lower level as follows:-
S.No. Name of Fine u/s Fine u/s Total Applicant 92(5) 137
1. Shefield 1.5 Lakhs 1.5 Lakhs 3 Lakhs Appliances Limited
2. Mr. Anil Kumar 1 Lakh 1 Lakh 2 Lakhs Agarwal
3. Mr. Ved 1 Lakh 1 Lakh 2 Lakhs Prakash Jain
4. Mr. Kishan Lal 1 Lakh 1 Lakh 2 Lakhs Sharma
4. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and considering that, the
income of the company is Rs.36,479/- for the year ending 31st March, 2017, we
reduce the amount payable by the Company to Rs.50,000/- under Section 92.
In so far as fine imposed under Section 137 is concerned, the same having
calculated @ Rs.1,000/- per day, we are not going to reduce the amount which
has already been reduced to 1.5 lakhs.
5. In so far as the rest of the Appellants are concerned, counsel for the
Appellant did not pursue the case with regard to Appellant Nos.3 and 4, but
prayer is made to reduce the amount so far as Appellant No.2 - Mr. Anil Kumar
Agarwal is concerned in view of his income. However, as we find that the fine has
Company Appeal (AT) No.213 of 2018 -4-
already been reduced to Rs.1 lakh in each of the case, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order so far it relates to Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal,
Mr. Ved Prakash Jain and Mr. Kishan Lal Sharma. Their prayer is rejected. The
appeal stands disposed of with appropriate directions. No cost.
[S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial) /rs/uk
Company Appeal (AT) No.213 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