Limitation must be decided before cognizance where complaints include delay-condonation requests; failure to do so vitiates the order.

Where complaints are filed with applications for condonation of delay, the court must first examine whether each complaint is within limitation and, if not, whether sufficient cause exists to condone the delay before taking cognizance. The trial court failed to address limitation properly, treating one complaint as within time and ignoring the delay issue in the other. As that mandatory exercise was not undertaken, the cognizance orders were unsustainable and were set aside with remand for fresh consideration of the delay applications and proceedings in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court had properly considered limitation and the accompanying applications for condonation of delay before taking cognizance of the complaints under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The complaints were filed along with applications seeking condonation of delay, but the trial court proceeded on the footing that one complaint was within limitation and did not address limitation at all in the other. Before taking cognizance, the court was required to apply its mind both to whether the complaint was within the prescribed period and, if not, whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay. That exercise had not been undertaken.

Conclusion: The cognizance orders were unsustainable for want of consideration of the delay applications and were liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The complaints were not finally terminated; the matter was sent back to the trial court to decide the delay-related applications and then proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the court taking cognizance must first apply its mind to limitation and the request for condonation before proceeding further.

---