TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulated from September 1, 2018. Because time was available for the company to file Form DIR-12 on or before September 1, 2018. So, delay to be calculated from September 1, 2018 but not from August 6, 2018 the date on which petitioner became director in M/s. Wanton Builders P. Ltd. So, the period from August 6, 2018 to August 31, 2018 is to be excluded and delay to be calculated from September 1, 2018 to April 12, 2019 exclusively the date on which Form DIR-12 was filed. The applicant is seeking compounding of violation of provisions of section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad calculated fine basing on the minimum prescribed under section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 - since no prosecution is launched against applicant and the present application is filed for compounding of the violation on his own. Therefore, the Tribunal can take a lenient view in imposing compounding fee of ₹ 2,000 per day which is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. As the compounding fee has been remitted by the applicant, the offence stated in the application is compounded. - C. P. No. 191/441/HDB/2019. - - - Dated:- 5-11-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25-03-2008 13. Rubella Realters P. Ltd. 25-03-2008 14. Enrich Power and Infra-Tech Development P. Ltd. 24-11-2008 15. Conflate Constructions P. Ltd. 12-08-2013 16. Moiety Estates P. Ltd. 12-08-2013 17. Elision Infratech P. Ltd. 29-07-2013 18. Duflex Infra Project P. Ltd. 27-08-2013 19. GRSD Constructions P. Ltd. 23-05-2013 20. Sarayoo Infratech P. Ltd. 05-06-2013 21. Mee Vasathi Homes P. Ltd. 12-06-2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor before such commencement and to the Registrar having jurisdiction in respect of each such company. (4) Any resignation made in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (3) shall become effective immediately on the despatch thereof to the company concerned. (5) No such person shall act as director in more than the specified number of companies,- (a) after despatching the resignation of his office as director or non-executive director thereof, in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-sec tion (3) ; or (b) after the expiry of one year from the commencement of this Act, whichever is earlier. (6) If a person accepts an appointment as a director in contraven tion of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the contravention continues. (c) The applicant was director in more than 20 companies on the date of commencement of section 165 (i. e., on April 1, 2014) accordingly the applicant was required to resign at least in seven companies within a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same day with the company, with the said resignation the total number of com panies in which the applicant was director has once again come down to nineteen. Though the applicant has resigned from Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., on August 1, 2018 and submitted his resignation on the said date, the said Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., failed to file Form DIR-12 with the respondent informing the resignation of the applicant. Copy of the resig nation letter submitted to Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., dated August 1, 2018 is enclosed to the application as annexure-5. (h) On August 6, 2018 the applicant was appointed as director in Wanton Builders P. Ltd., with which the applicant became director in twenty companies. It is further submitted that as Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., failed to file the intimation of resignation of the applicant as director with the respondent. The records of the respondent was showing that as if the applicant was director in 21 companies. (i) As the record of the respondent was showing as if the applicant was director in 21 companies, the respondent has disqualified the applicant under section 164 of the Companies Act, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector in more than 20 companies after the commencement of the pro visions, i. e., April 1, 2014 but however should have intimated the resig nations to the respective Registrar of Companies by August 31, 2018 so as to fall within the prescribed limits as per law since the said applicant has resigned from Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., on August 1, 2018. The applicant was not only appointed as a director in Wanton Builders P. Ltd., on August 6, 2018 but also failed to comply in intimating the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad with regard to his resignations in Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., he is therefore a defaulter on or after September 1, 2018 for violating section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. (c) The period of calculating the number of days delayed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013, shall be reckoned from the date of appointment in M/s. Wanton Builders P. Ltd., i. e., from August 6, 2018 to March 14, 2019 i. e., the date of inti mation of resignation in M/s. Yashoda Special Metals P. Ltd., due to which after such resignation date, the applicant director falls within the prescribed limits as on this date as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed on April 13, 2019. However, Form MGT-7 was also filed beyond the date of filing Form DIR-12. The company should have informed Registrar of Companies by filing Form DIR-12 on or before September 1, 2018. So, the delay to be calculated from September 1, 2018. Because time was available for the company to file Form DIR-12 on or before September 1, 2018. So, delay to be calculated from September 1, 2018 but not from August 6, 2018 the date on which petitioner became director in M/s. Wanton Builders P. Ltd. So, the period from August 6, 2018 to August 31, 2018 is to be excluded and delay to be calculated from September 1, 2018 to April 12, 2019 exclusively the date on which Form DIR-12 was filed. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi cited supra. In this decision, it is observed that the principle of imposing minimum fine on compounding matters is not mandatory. As compounding of an offence can be accepted by a court even by admonishing the defaulter or issuing a warning. Thus, hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi has imposed fine less than the minimum. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
