PQR Ltd. failed to file return of allotment against the 16 lakh shares allotted by the Board of directors at its meeting held on 20th April, 2016 and got order for compounding of offence on 10th June, 2018. The company a

Answer 3(a) Interval between two similar offences for compounding under section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 Sec 441 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 expressly provides that if any offence which was committed by company or the officers was compounded under section 441 of the Act, and an offence similar to what was compounded earlier is committed again by a company or its officers within a period of three years from the date on which the earlier offence was compounded, then the provisions of section 441 will not be applicable and the company and the officers concerned will not be eligible for compounding again. In other words, similar offence can be compounded only once in three years. Hence, in the given case, the company cannot go for compounding for non-filing of return of allotment. However, there is no such restriction imposed under section 454 on adjudicating a penalty by the adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer may, by an order- impose the penalty on the company, the officer who is in default, or any other person, as the case may be, stating therein any non-compliance or default under the relevant provisions of this Act; and direct such company, or officer who is in default, or any other person, as the case may be, to rectify the default, wherever he considers fit. According to section 460(b) of Companies Act, 2013, where any document required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under any provision of the Companies Act, 2013 is not filed within the time specified therein, the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, condone the delay. So, the option of adjudication and condonation of delay is available to the company.