Oppression and mismanagement claims failed where stale grievances, prior knowledge, and Article 137 limitation barred the petition.

A petition for oppression and mismanagement failed where the pleaded grievances arose from long-standing family and shareholding disputes, the company was not carrying on business, and no live cause of action was shown for equitable relief. The Tribunal also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied, so a challenge filed in 2018 to acts stretching back to 1997 was time-barred when the petitioners were found to have knowledge of the impugned conduct. The plea of continuing wrong was rejected on those facts, and the petition was dismissed as both not made out on merits and barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was maintainable on the facts pleaded; (ii) Whether the company petition was barred by limitation and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the impugned acts.

Issue (i): Whether the petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was maintainable on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: The petition challenged acts extending over a long period, but the petitioners had taken no effective legal steps for many years despite claiming knowledge of the affairs of the company. The materials also showed that the company was not carrying on business and that the disputes largely arose from inter se family and shareholding grievances. On those facts, the case did not disclose a live cause of action warranting relief under the oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the company petition was barred by limitation and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the impugned acts.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings of this nature. Since the petition was filed in 2018 while questioning acts stretching back to 1997 and the petitioners were found to have knowledge of the challenged actions, the petition was held to be barred by limitation. The plea of continuing wrong was not accepted on these facts.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition for oppression and mismanagement was rejected as time-barred and not made out on merits, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A petition under the oppression and mismanagement provisions cannot be sustained where the challenged acts are stale, the petitioners had knowledge of them, and the claim falls outside the limitation period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---