Dismissed petition due to delay and lack of standing under Companies Act. Petitioner can claim unclaimed dividends.

The petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's delay in filing the petition, lack of locus standi, and failure to meet shareholding requirements under the Companies Act led to the dismissal. However, the petitioner was granted the right to claim unclaimed dividends. Each party was directed to bear their own costs due to the petitioner's personal difficulties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings before the Tribunal.
2. Determination of the period of limitation for complaints regarding illegal induction of directors and reduction of share capital.
3. Applicability of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. The Tribunal's powers and procedures under the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Petitioner's locus standi and shareholding requirement under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. Petitioner's delay in filing the petition and its justification.
7. Petitioner's entitlement to unclaimed dividends.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal emphasized that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings before it as per Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal noted, "The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings or appeals before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal."

2. Determination of the period of limitation for complaints regarding illegal induction of directors and reduction of share capital:
The Tribunal observed that no specific period of limitation is provided for the illegal induction of directors or wrongful reduction of share capital. Therefore, Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for suits with no specified limitation, applies. "In cases where no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, there Article 113 is to apply."

3. Applicability of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013:
Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, was applied to determine the limitation period. The Tribunal clarified that even though Section 433 was enforced from 01.06.2016, the petitioner could not overcome the delay in filing the petition as the cause of action arose much earlier.

4. The Tribunal's powers and procedures under the Companies Act, 2013:
The Tribunal is vested with powers similar to a civil court under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal stated, "The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not, while disposing of any proceeding before it or, as the case may be, an appeal before it, be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice."

5. Petitioner's locus standi and shareholding requirement under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The Tribunal questioned the petitioner's locus standi as he did not meet the 10% shareholding requirement. The petitioner held only 1.91% shares, which was insufficient to maintain the petition under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956.

6. Petitioner's delay in filing the petition and its justification:
The Tribunal found the petition barred by limitation, noting the cause of action arose between 2009 and February 2012, while the petition was filed in October 2015. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's argument of depression as a cause for delay, stating, "The period of limitation cannot be extended in a suit and the present proceedings are the original proceeding which are in the nature of a suit."

7. Petitioner's entitlement to unclaimed dividends:
The Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's right to claim unclaimed dividends, as stated by the respondent's counsel. "The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the unclaimed dividends as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents."

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Tribunal concluded, "The petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the unclaimed dividends as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents." The parties were directed to bear their own costs due to the petitioner's personal difficulties.

---