Partly allowed

M/S Kannur Platinum Drive LLP v. Union of India

Kerala HC15 Nov 2023WP(C)/13079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition where an LLP sought a refund of interim penalty (relabeled as additional fees) paid due to technical glitches. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the refund claim within three months after hearing. The judgment was expressly limited to these facts and not cited as precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was confirmed except regarding the obligation to pay penalty, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for refund of the paid amount within three mon

M/S Kannur Platinum Drive LLP Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶4

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S KANNUR PLATINUM DRIVE LLP,
EPIII 193B, THOTTADA, KANNUR-670007,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER
KAZHAKA PURAYIL SASIDHARAN.

¶7

BY ADVS.
EBIN MATHEW
P.J.MATHEW
AKHILA SHOJI
GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN S.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-, PIN – 110001.

¶10

2THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
VTH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.

¶11

3 THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ERNAKULAM, COMPANY LAW BUILDING, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN – 682021

¶12

BY ADV MINI GOPINATH -CGC .

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, which is stated to be a
registeredLimitedLiabilityPartnership
(‘LLP’), submits that, even though they tried to
upload the relevant documents on the website of
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’),
within the timeline as stipulated in the
Statutory Scheme, they were incapacitated from
doing so on account of certain technical

¶18

glitches.

¶19

2.The petitioner asserts that this was
verified by the competent officials of the
‘MCA’, who also tried to join the online

¶20

meeting, where it was demonstrated and shown
that the documents were unable to be uploaded;
and therefore, that insistence of penalty for
uploading the same is illegal and unlawful. They
thus pray that respondents be directed to accept

¶21

Form Nos.3 and 4 from them through e-mail,

¶22

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶23

-3-

¶24

without penalty.

¶25

3.Though I have recorded the essential

¶26

grievances of the petitioner as afore, the fact
remains that, pending this lis, an interim order
was issued on 05.05.2023, by a learned Judge of
this Court, to the following effect:

¶27

“The learned counsel for both sides
submits that the petitioner will now be
in a position to download the form and
also upload the same on payment of an
amount of Rs.22,500/-. The learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that,
his client is not liable to pay the said
amount as it is not on account of his
fault the delay had occurred. There will
be an interim order permitting the
petitioner, after making the payment of
Rs.22,500 provisionally subject to the
result of the writ petition. If it is
ultimately found that the writ petitioner
is entitled to succeed, then the
respondents will refund the said amount
to the petitioner. The respondents will
also ensure that the petitioner is able
to upload the Annual Returns in Form II.”

¶28

4.It is conceded by Smt.Mini Gopinath –

¶29

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶30

-4-

¶31

learned Central Government Counsel and by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, that
documents have already been uploaded in terms of
the afore interim order; and all which now
remains is the consideration whether they are
entitled to be refunded the amount of
Rs.22,500/-, which was collected from them as
penalty.

¶32

5.Sri.Ebin Mathew – learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioner, vehemently argued that, pending
this lis, a Scheme was brought out by the ‘MCA’,
whereby entities like his client could have
filed their returns without having to suffer any
penalty. He submitted that, however, merely
because his client abided by the interim order
of this Court afore extracted, they are now
denied benefits under the said Scheme; and
therefore, prayed that competent Authority be
directed to offer the same to his client without

¶34

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶35

-5-

¶36

any avoidable delay.

¶37

6.However, Smt.Mini Gopinath – learned

¶38

Central Government Counsel, in response,
submitted that the afore Scheme is a self
contained code and that the benefits thereunder
can be offered only to those who applied to
upload their documents within the time frames
mentioned in it and as per the stipulations
therein. She pointed out that, since the
petitioner did not upload the documents under
the Scheme, benefits thereunder cannot be
offered to them.

¶39

7.Even though, as an abstract principle,
the afore submissions of Smt.Mini Gopinath may
be tenable in law, the fact remains that this is
a case where very peculiar circumstances and
facts are attracted.

¶40

8.I say as afore because, if this Court

¶41

had not issued the afore extracted interim

¶42

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶43

order, then the petitioner could have as well

¶44

invoked the provisions of the Scheme, when it
was introduced pending this matter and uploaded
the documents without having to suffer any

¶45

penalty. Obviously, therefore, it is only
because the petitioner obeyed the interim order
of this Court that they have now been mulcted
with detriment.

¶46

8.Apodictically, therefore, this is a
matter which will require to engage the
attention of the competent Authority of the 1st
respondent, particularly as to the claim of the
petitioner for return of penalty paid by them,
adverting to my observations above.

¶47

Resultantly, I order this writ petition,
confirming the interim order afore extracted,
except to the extent to which it obligated the
petitioner to make payment of penalty; with a
consequential direction to the competent

¶48

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶49

-7-

¶50

Authority of the 1st respondent to consider their

¶51

claim for refund of the same. This shall be
done after hearing them online; thus culminating
in an appropriate order and necessary action

¶52

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

If, through the afore exercise, the amount

¶54

in question is found due to be returned to the
petitioner, same shall be done without any
avoidable delay thereafter.

¶55

I also clarify that, since the judgment has
been delivered taking note of the peculiar
factual circumstances involved in this case, it

¶56

will not operate as a precedent in any other
case, even where analogous contentions or facts
are impelled.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶59

akv

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶62

-8-

¶63

The word ‘Penalty’ occurring in Para 2, 4,
5, 8 and in the operative part of the judgment
dated 15.11.2023 inW.P(C)No.13079/2023 is
corrected and substituted as ‘Additional Fees’
as per order dated 06.02.2024 in IA 1/2024 in
W.P(C)No.13079/2023.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

Joint Registrar

¶66

WP(C) NO. 13079 OF 2023

¶67

-9-

¶68

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13079/2023

¶69

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶70

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `THE CONSENT TO ACT AS PARTNER ISSUED BY` `31 MEMBERS IN FORM 9`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-2` `A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN` `THE MEETING OF THE PARTNERS OF PETITIONER` `LLP ON 05/09/2022`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-3` `A TRUE COPY OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY` `PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 05/09/2022`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-4` `A TRUE COPY OF FORM-4 PREPARED BY THE` `PETITIONER LLP IN THE WEBSITE OF THE` `MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-5` `A TRUE COPY OF EMAILS SENT BY THE COMPANY` `SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER LLP`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-6` `SCREENSHOTS OF THE WEBPAGE SHOWING ERROR` `IN UPLOADING THE FORMS DATED 25/04/2023`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-7` `A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL SENT TO THE` `TECHNICAL TEAM DATED 25/04/2023`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-8` `SCREENSHOTS OF THE WEBPAGE OF MCA DATED` `28/04/2023 AT DIFFERENT TIMINGS (4 IN` `NO.S)`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-9` `A TRUE COPY OF AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN` `CNBCTV18 DATED 21/04/2023`

¶71

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶72

ANNEXURE R1(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CIRCULAR
NO.8/2023 DATED 23/8/2023

M/S Kannur Platinum Drive LLP v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kannur Platinum Drive LLP v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benny Antony, Vs Managing Director

T.M.Madhavankutty Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

M/S Peediakkal Agencies, Vs the State of Kerala

K.Pramod Vs Sreedharan.K.P

B.Chandran Vs District Collector

Eldho P. John Vs Prof. Manish R Joshi