https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371193 Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act did not permit exclusion of time because the earlier company petition and subsequent suit involved different causes of action and matters in issue, and the earlier proceeding had not failed for want of jurisdiction or a similar cause. The suit was therefore time-barred. The inter se shareholding agreement was confined to the swap and demerger exercise and created no perpetual restraint on subsequent share acquisitions or transfers. As shares are freely transferable absent an express restriction in the articles or binding law, allegations of non-disclosure, fraud, or oral understandings could not establish an enforceable claim contrary to the written agreement. The suit and interim application were dismissed with costs. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371193 Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act did not permit exclusion of time because the earlier company petition and subsequent suit involved different causes of action and matters in issue, and the earlier proceeding had not failed for want of jurisdiction or a similar cause. The suit was therefore time-barred. The inter se shareholding agreement was confined to the swap and demerger exercise and created no perpetual restraint on subsequent share acquisitions or transfers. As shares are freely transferable absent an express restriction in the articles or binding law, allegations of non-disclosure, fraud, or oral understandings could not establish an enforceable claim contrary to the written agreement. The suit and interim application were dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371193