Section 441 of Companies Act 2013 deals with compounding and Section 454 deals with adjudication. The adjudicating officer has no power to compound. The Regional Director alone can compound.
The Companies Act of 2013 in India provides provisions for the adjudication of offences committed by companies and individuals. Section 454 of the Act specifically deals with the adjudication process and its implications. However, there may be confusion regarding the role of compounding and the distinction between penalties and fines. In this article, we will explore the differences between compounding and adjudication, as well as penalties and fines under the Companies Act of 2013.
Suo moto compounding of offence means where a company comes to know about some default which is committed by the company and till date ROC did not recognise the default then the company by itself may apply for the suo moto compounding of that offence. Application has to be made to the ROC for compounding of such offence.
Compounding vs. Adjudication:
Compounding and adjudication are two distinct processes within the legal framework of the Companies Act. Compounding refers to the settlement of an offence by paying a prescribed sum of money as a penalty, with the defaulter admitting the guilt. On the other hand, adjudication involves the examination and determination of the penalty by an adjudicating officer or authority.
Section 454(2) and the Role of Regional Director/NCLT:
The question arises whether the Regional Director (RD) or the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) should consider adjudication proceedings under Section 454(2) when a defaulter has filed a suo moto application for composition, identifying the nature of the offence. In such cases, it appears that Section 454 may not be applicable. The RD/NCLT, who has received the compounding application along with a report from the Registrar of Companies (ROC), must seek directions from the RD/NCLT to decide whether to proceed with adjudication or accept the compounding application.
Difference between Penalty and Fine:
In the context of the Companies Act of 2013, it is crucial to understand the distinction between penalties and fines. Penalties are monetary sanctions imposed as a consequence of non-compliance with specific sections of the Act. These penalties are determined through the adjudication process under Section 454 and are subject to the discretion of the adjudicating officer. On the other hand, fines are prescribed monetary charges mentioned in the violated sections themselves, indicating the amount to be paid as a consequence of the offence committed.
Section 441 and 454: Coexistence and Separation of Powers:
It is important to note that Section 441 and Section 454 of the Companies Act of 2013 operate independently within their respective spheres. Previously, the ROC could only initiate criminal proceedings for violations, leading to trials in Magistrate’s courts. However, Section 454, along with its rules, empowers the adjudicating officers from the administrative machinery to determine penalties instead of resorting to criminal proceedings. This shift aims to expedite the delivery of justice, except in cases falling under appropriate Special Courts established under Section 435.
Conclusion:
The Companies Act of 2013 provides provisions for both compounding and adjudication of offences committed by companies and individuals. While compounding involves settling the offence through a prescribed penalty, adjudication refers to the determination of penalties by an adjudicating officer. It is important to understand the distinction between penalties and fines, as fines are predefined charges stated within the violated sections themselves. Section 441 and Section 454 coexist and operate within their separate spheres, allowing for a more streamlined and efficient adjudication process.
Author Bio
