https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378042 The tribunal dismissed the petition as time-barred, ruling that the petitioner's claim challenging the 2009 allotment was filed almost nine years after the event, exceeding the three-year limitation period. The petitioner's argument of not receiving notice of meetings was deemed insufficient to establish a continuous cause of action. The tribunal referenced Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, applying the Limitation Act, 1963, and cited precedents supporting the three-year limitation for such petitions. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's application for waiver of eligibility conditions under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, was also rejected. en-us Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378042 The tribunal dismissed the petition as time-barred, ruling that the petitioner's claim challenging the 2009 allotment was filed almost nine years after the event, exceeding the three-year limitation period. The petitioner's argument of not receiving notice of meetings was deemed insufficient to establish a continuous cause of action. The tribunal referenced Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, applying the Limitation Act, 1963, and cited precedents supporting the three-year limitation for such petitions. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's application for waiver of eligibility conditions under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, was also rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378042