Continuing cause in family company disputes kept the petition within time and excluded Article 137 limitation.

In a family company dispute over promised share allotment and induction as an NRI director, the Board treated the grievance as arising from a continuing cause linked to the 1988 board resolution. It found that the company and its managing director were responsible for completing the necessary formalities and that no material explained the failure to do so. On that basis, and noting that the arrangement was family partnership-like in character, the Board held that limitation did not run in the ordinary manner. It also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the proceedings in this quasi-judicial context. The petition was therefore maintainable and not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company petition was barred by limitation and whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to the petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The dispute arose in the context of a family company where the promised allotment of 40% shares and the petitioner's induction as NRI director were part of a common family arrangement. The Board found that the obligation to complete the necessary formalities and allot the shares rested on the company and its managing director, and that the respondents had not shown any material explaining the failure to do so. On the facts, the grievance was treated as a continuing cause beginning from the 1988 board resolution, and the Board relied on the view that in such family partnership-like arrangements, the limitation period does not run in the ordinary manner. The Board also held that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals in the present context.

Conclusion: The petition was held to be maintainable and was not barred by limitation.

---