Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petition challenging alleged oppression, mismanagement, illegal induction of directors and reduction of shareholding was barred by limitation and delay.
Analysis: By virtue of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to proceedings before the Tribunal. The grievances pleaded did not fall under any specific article of the Schedule, so the residuary Article 113 applied, prescribing three years from the date when the right to sue accrued. The proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the corresponding regime under the Companies Act, 2013 were treated as proceedings in the nature of a suit, and the Tribunal's order was capable of execution like a decree under Sections 424 and 425 of the Companies Act, 2013. On the petitioner's own showing, the impugned acts and knowledge of those acts arose much earlier than the filing of the petition, and the explanation based on illness did not justify extension of limitation in such original proceedings. The plea of continuing cause of action was also rejected on the facts.
Conclusion: The petition was held to be barred by limitation and delay and laches.