Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

In The Matter Of v.

In The Matter Of v.

(National Company Law Tribunal)

1. ADAP. TV Technology India Private Limited (Represented by Mr. Subramaniyam Padmanabhan, Director) 1-89-3/B/40 to 42/KS/902, 9th Floor, MSR Block, Krishe Sapphire Building Survey No. 88, Hitech City Road, Madhapur Hyderabad-500081, Telangana & 3 others ? Applicants. C.A. No. 53/621A/HDB/2016 | 22-09-2016

Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, Member (J): The present Application was initially filed before the Honble Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, Chennai. Upon the constitution of NCLT Bench at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the case was transferred to this Bench as it falls under the jurisdiction of this Bench.

2.The present Company Application (CA) is filed by seeking the following direction:

Allow the present application and compound the offence committed under Section 285 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Company by failing to hold Board Meeting for the quarter from April 2013 to June 2013 within the time prescribed within Section 285 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the period commencing from July 01, 2013 till October 14, 2013 with minimum fine as may be determined by this Honble Board to meet the ends of justice.

3.The CA is listed today for hearing. A letter dated 20thsept, 2016 was addressed by AOL Technology India Limited (formerly known as Adap. TV Technology India Private Limited) to Assistant Director of NCLT, Hyderabad. It is stated in the letter that the company has filed two compounding applications under Section 621 Aread with Section 285 of Companies Act, 1956 for the same offence bearing Company Application No. 285-286/621A/CB/2014 before the Company Law Board, Chennai (CLB). The CLB passed a final order dated 10.11.2014 in C.A. No. 285-286/621A/CB/2014, compounding the offences.

4.In view of the above facts, we dismiss the Company Application as infructuous.

Advocate List
Bench
  • RAJESWARA RAO VITTANALA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
  • RAVIKUMAR DURAISAMY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Eq Citations
  • LQ/NCLT/2016/182
Head Note

Companies Act, 1956 — S. 621-A read with S. 285 — Compounding of offence — Two compounding applications filed for same offence — One compounding application already granted by CLB — Company Application dismissed as infructuous