https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313245 In a family company dispute over promised share allotment and induction as an NRI director, the Board treated the grievance as arising from a continuing cause linked to the 1988 board resolution. It found that the company and its managing director were responsible for completing the necessary formalities and that no material explained the failure to do so. On that basis, and noting that the arrangement was family partnership-like in character, the Board held that limitation did not run in the ordinary manner. It also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the proceedings in this quasi-judicial context. The petition was therefore maintainable and not time-barred. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:57:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313245 In a family company dispute over promised share allotment and induction as an NRI director, the Board treated the grievance as arising from a continuing cause linked to the 1988 board resolution. It found that the company and its managing director were responsible for completing the necessary formalities and that no material explained the failure to do so. On that basis, and noting that the arrangement was family partnership-like in character, the Board held that limitation did not run in the ordinary manner. It also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the proceedings in this quasi-judicial context. The petition was therefore maintainable and not time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313245