TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the petition was prima facie barred by limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether the limitation issue could be tried first under Order XIV, rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the pleading disclosed an averment of fraud in law so as to attract Order VI, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and section 17(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963; (iii) whether the plea that the share-transfer transaction was void, or that there was sufficient cause or a continuing wrong, saved limitation.
Issue (i): whether the petition was prima facie barred by limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether the limitation issue could be tried first under Order XIV, rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Analysis: Article 137 prescribed a three-year period for applications where no other period was provided, running from when the right to apply accrued. The petition for rectification was filed after the expiry of that period. Order XIV, rule 2(2) permitted the court to try first an issue of law that created a bar by law, and limitation in the present case was treated as such an issue.
Conclusion: The petition was prima facie barred by limitation, and the limitation issue could properly be tried as a preliminary issue.
Issue (ii): whether the pleading disclosed an averment of fraud in law so as to attract Order VI, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and section 17(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963
Analysis: A plea of fraud required specific particulars with dates and items where necessary. The petition used broad expressions such as fraud on the statute, fraud on the company, and fraud on the shareholders, but did not supply the particulars required by Order VI, rule 4. For section 17(1)(b), it was not enough to allege fraudulent conduct; it had to be shown that the knowledge of the right itself was concealed and that the party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it earlier.
Conclusion: The pleadings did not contain an averment of fraud in law, and section 17(1)(b) did not extend limitation.
Issue (iii): whether the plea that the share-transfer transaction was void, or that there was sufficient cause or a continuing wrong, saved limitation
Analysis: A transaction that is alleged to be void still has to be challenged within the prescribed limitation period. The court also held that no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay. On the doctrine of continuing wrong, the alleged wrong was complete when the transaction and entry in the share register were made, and its continuing effect did not amount to a continuing breach.
Conclusion: The plea of voidness did not displace limitation, no sufficient cause was shown, and the continuing-wrong argument failed.
Final Conclusion: The company application succeeded, and the rectification petition was dismissed at the preliminary stage as time-barred, with the connected interim request rendered infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: A petition for rectification cannot escape limitation by invoking fraud unless the pleadings set out specific particulars and show concealment of the right itself despite reasonable diligence; a mere assertion that a transaction is void or continuing does not prevent the limitation period from running.
TaxTMI 
