Mr. A who was a director in ABC Limited, had directorships for more than 20 companies till 31.03.2015. He tendered his resignation as the director in one of the Company. The same was accepted by the Board of Directors of

The facts of the given situation are similar to decided case of Registrar of Companies, West Bengal vs Karan Kishore Samtani before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Fact of the case: The respondent was the director, for more than 20 companies till 31.03.2015. The respondent tendered his resignation as the director of the Company M/s Fabius Properties Pvt. Ltd. The same was accepted by the Board of Directors of the Company on 29.12.2015. However, the intimation of his resignation was sent to the Registrar of Companies vide Form DIR-12 on 10.02.2016. The respondent has violated the provisions under Section 165(1) read with Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013(Act) which is punishable under Section 165(6) of the Act, The NCLT, Kolkata bench has imposed compounding fees of ₹ 50,000/- which is less than minimum prescribed under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. Being aggrieved with this order ROC has filed this Appeal. Decision: The issue for consideration was, whether Tribunal can impose the compounding fees under Section 441 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 less than minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 165 (1) read with Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT held that the NCLT, Kolkata Bench has failed to notice the minimum fine prescribed under Sub-Section 6 of Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013 which was applicable at relevant time. The Respondent has contravened the provisions of 165(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under Sub-Section 6 of Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, NCLAT imposed minimum fine at the rate of five thousand rupees for every day for the period 01.04.2015 to 21.02.2016 i.e. 272 days. The NCLAT quantified the penalty amount to ₹ 13,60,000/-. The Respondent had paid ₹ 50,000/- after adjustment, and later he was liable to pay ₹ 13,10,000/-. Therefore, the Respondent was directed to pay such amount within a period of 60 days in National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata. Hence, considering the decision of NCLAT in the above matter, the appeal of ROC may be held as tenable.