SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 485

Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
V.L.S. Finance Ltd.
Versus
Union of India & Others
Civil Appeal No. 2102 of 2004
Decided on : 10-05-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Company law Board empowered to compound offences without prior permission of court.

Headnote:Administration of Justice - Appeal - If the facts already pleaded give rise to pure question of law, the appellate court can entertain the same - Adjudication of fact, however, cannot be pleaded for the first time at appellate stage. (Para 10)

        Companies Act, 1956 - Section 211(7) - Section 211(7) providing for punishment with imprisonment or with fine or with both - An accused can be let off with fine only depending upon the nature of the offence - Power of compounding can be exercised both by the Company Law Board or the court in seisin of the matter - The difference being that the Company Law Board can proceed to compound such offence either before or after the institution of any prosecution. (Paras 13 and 14)

        Companies Act, 1956 - Section 621A (1) and (7) - Power of Company law Board to compound punishment under section 211(7) - Prior permission of court not necessary. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case:

        This appeal calls for interpretation of section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgment :-

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated 5th of November, 2003 passed by the Company Judge, Delhi High Court in Company Appeal (B) No. 1 of 2001 whereby it has dismissed the appeal assailing the order of the Company Law Board allowing the compounding of offence under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana laid complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, inter alia alleging that during the course of inspection it was noticed in the balance sheet of 1995-96 Schedule of the fixed assets included land worth Rs. 21 crores. According to the complaint, M/s. Sunair Hotels Ltd., for short ‘the Company”, had taken this land from New Delhi Municipal Corporation on licence and the Company only pays the yearly licence fee thereof. Thus, according to the complainant, without any right land has been shown as land in the Schedule of fixed assets, which is not a true and fair view and punishable under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The Company and its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, S.P. Gupta were arrayed as accused.

However, before the court in seisin of the case could proceed with the complaint, the Company and its Managing Director jointly filed an application before the Company Law Board for compounding the offence. The Northern Region Bench of the Company Law Board, by its order dated 9th of August, 2000 acceded to the prayer and compounded the offence against the Managing Director on payment of Rs. 1000/- for each offence each year.

While doing so, the Company Law Board has held as follows:

“…The exercise of powers by the Company Law Board under 621A(1) is independent of exercise of powers by the court under sub- section (7) and all offences other than those which are punishable with imprisonment only or with imprisonment and also fine, can be compounded by Company Law Board without any reference to sub-section (7), even in cases where prosecution is pending in a criminal court. Thus, it is clear that Company Law Board if so approached can compound offences and in such case no prior permission of the Court is necessary.”

Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred Company Appeal before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the power of compounding could be exercised by the criminal court and not by the Company Law Board. Said submission has not found favour and the Company Judge, in this connection, observed as follows:

“18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the person seeking compounding of an offence in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code can do so before the criminal Court with the permission of the Court under sub-section (7) of Section 621A of the Act, which normally cannot be done under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such compounding of offence would always be relatable to the offence punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both as is made clear under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (7). Under the aforesaid sub-section the offence punishable with imprisonment or with fine or both shall be compoundable with the permission of the Court and for such compounding the procedure laid down under the Criminal Procedure Code is to be followed in that regard provided the prosecution is pending in that Court. I also hold the Company Law Board can compound an offence of the nature prescribed under sub-section (1) either before the institution of the criminal proceeding or even after institution of the criminal proceeding and the said power is not subject to the provisions of sub-section (7). Both are parallel powers to be exercised by the prescribed authorities who have been empowered under the statute and one power is not dependent on the other……”

Accordingly, the Company Judge dismissed the appeal.

That is how the appellan









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top