JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

In these appeals as common question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Appellants, Companies along with its Officers, filed applications under Section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 for compounding of the offences committed by them, on the ground that corrective measures have already been taken, which have been dismissed/disposed of by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), New Delhi Bench-III, by common order dated 16th February, 2018 with the following observations.

“DECISION:

(i) In relation to CP-16/176/ND/2017, CP- 16/181/ND/2017, CP-16/124/ND/2017, CP- 16/126/ND/2017 and CP-16/142/ND/2017 the defaulted provisions being Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013 and/or the equivalent provision under the earlier Act of 1956 since repealed as the case may be cannot be entertained in view of the following: -

(a) Since all the five applications as listed above pertains to default in relation to filing of Annual Returns Which is required to be filed for each year and the default is in relation to more than a year and as the same offence had been committed for the second or subsequent occasions within a period of three years and as the defaulted section being section 92 provides for fine or imprisonment or With both, for the officers in default thereby making it virtually non-compoundable by virtue of operation of Section 451 read with Section 441(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to compound the offence as dealt with in detail under Issue No.3 supra.

(b) Further a joint application for the default committed under the 1956 Act as well as 2013 Act filed is also not maintainable in view of the position as enunciated and dealt with under Issue No.4 supra.

(c) In any case under the 2013 Act since the maximum amount of fine prescribed for the offence of not filing annual returns is not in excess of five lakh rupees, this Tribunal lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the compounding applications as listed above For each of the above reasons stated CP- 16/i76/ND/2017, CP-16/181/ND/2017, CP- 16/124/ND/2017, CP-16/126/ND/2017 and CP-16/142/ND/2017 stands dismissed but without costs.

(ii) In relation to CP-16/174/ND/2017, CP- 16/180/ND/2017, CP-16/127/ND/2017, CP- 16/123/ND/2017, CP-16/141/ND/2017, CP- 16/132/ND/2017 and CP-16/144/ND/2017 the defaulted provisions being Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 and/or the equivalent provision under the earlier Act of 1956 since repealed as the case may be cannot be entertained in view of the following: -

(a) Since all the seven applications as listed above pertains to default in relation to filing of Financial Statements which is required to be filed for each year and the default is in relation to more than a year and as the same offence had been committed for the second or subsequent occasions within a period of three years and as the defaulted section being section 137 provides for fine or imprisonment or with both, for the officers in default thereby making it virtually non-compoundable by virtue of operation of Section 451 read with Section 441(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to compound the offence as dealt with in detail under Issue No.3 supra.

(b) Further a joint application for the default committed under the 1956 Act as well as 2013 Act filed is also not maintainable in view of the position as enunciated and dealt with under Issue No.4 supra.

For each of the reasons as stated above CP- 16/174/ND/2017, CP-16/180/ND/2017, CP- 16/127/ND/2017, CP-16/123/ND/2017, CP- 16/141/ND/2017, CP-16/132/ND/2017 and CP-16/144/ND/2017 stands dismissed but without costs.

(iii) In relation to CP-16/178/ND/2017, CP- 16/182/ND/2017, CP-16/130/ND/2017, CP 16/122/ND/2017 and CP-16/125/ND/2017 concerning defaults arising out of sections 96 read with Section 99 of Companies Act, 2013 or the equivalent provis