TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- There is substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Company and the Directors have not been treated equally. Impugned order maintained with regard to imposing of fine under Section 148(8) for FY 2014 2015 and 2015 2016 and substitute 40,000 in place of 2,00,000 with regard to the Directors/Officers, i.e. present Appellants No.2 to 5 - rest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated prosecution under Section 233B(11) of the Companies Act, 1956 (old Act in short) before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for Economic Offences, Jaipur for the financial year 2013 2014. The Company moved application for compounding and the matter was then filed with NCLT. Permission from prosecuting Court under Section 441(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 (new Act in short) was also obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total (Rs.) 1. M/s. Goyal Vegoils Ltd. 5,000 2,00,000 2,05,000 2. Tara Chand Goyal 10,000 2,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1 Lakh as prescribed under Section 148(8) read with Section 147(1) on each of the Directors for each of the two financial years 2014 2015 and 2015 2016, when in contrast the fine imposed on the Appellant Company is ₹ 1 Lakh for 2014 2015 and ₹ 1 Lakh for 2015 2016 as against the maximum fine prescribed of ₹ 5 Lakhs for each financial year with regard to applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. Considering the above provision and the fine as imposed, we find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Company and the Directors have not been treated equally. Thus, we proceed to pass the following Order:- ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
