Deputy RoC’s complaint against petitioner was quashed as a plea for violating sec. 165 was already filed for compounding

Case Details: Praveen Agarwal v. Deputy Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu - [2021] 130 taxmann.com 462 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • M. Dhandpani, J.
  • C. Arun Kumar for the Petitioner.
  • D. Ramesh Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was a director in more than 20 companies at a time and thus, committed offence under section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Registrar of Companies, thus, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, for which the petitioner had sent a reply. In addition to the foregoing, the petitioner also filed an application under section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the compounding of the alleged offence.

High Court Held

Without considering the compounding application, the Registrar issued another show-cause notice and for which also petitioner had sent a reply to intimating pendency of compounding application.

However, without considering any of these aspects, for the alleged violation, Registrar filed the complaint before Competent Court. In fact, the complaint was not sustainable and thus, was to be quashed