Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1076 - HC - Companies LawCompounding of offences - whether the Appeal raises a substantial question of law as set out in para 7, and whether the discretion exercised by the CLB while ordering compounding of offences calls for interference by this Court? HELD THAT:- There appears to be no judgment of the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts exactly delineating the parameters that could be followed in considering the compounding of cases under various jurisdictions. However, in the context of the offences alleged under the SEBI Act, SEBI had notified certain guidelines - In recent times, the NCLAT chaired by Hon'ble Sri Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, retired Supreme Court Judge in VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA (P.) LTD. VERSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NCT DELHI AND HARYANA [2016 (2) TMI 1067 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] had broadly set out the parameters that are required to be noticed in compounding the offences. It cannot be said that the CLB failed to apply the parameters for compounding the offences for which prosecution has been laid. If one looks at the question of law raised, in the settled legal principles, it is really not a substantial question of law as what all has been questioned is the wisdom of the CLB in exercising discretion by accepting the compounding applications. The penalty imposed for compounding is substantially high which would serve as a deterrent in future to the respondent and also similarly-situated entities / persons. Since there is no merit in the Appeal and the decision of the CLB having been based on the material placed before it, and that no question of perversity of finding of fact having been raised. Appeal does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.
|