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%
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 company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement was barred by limitation, and whether the pleaded acts amounted to a continuing cause of action so as to extend the period of limitation.
Analysis: The applicable limitation principle was that, where no specific period is provided for proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, Article 137 governs and the period is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. Limitation was treated as a mixed question of law and fact. The alleged acts spanned from 1996 to 2009, while the petition was filed only in 2014. The complaint of oppression was founded on events that were already known to the petitioners, including removal from directorship, and later events were regarded as continuing effects of earlier acts rather than fresh causes of action. A successive wrong did not create a new limitation period, and even on the latest pleaded act the petition was beyond three years.
Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation and the plea of continuing cause of action failed. The dismissal of the petition was upheld and the appeal was rejected.