https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781068 Time spent in a prior civil suit could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where the appellant himself instituted and pursued that proceeding, the plaint was rejected as time-barred, and that adverse order was never challenged. Limitation for the later company appeal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was therefore computed from the date of knowledge of the disputed share transfer, making the appeal time-barred. On that basis, refusal to condone delay was found to involve no legal error, and the rejection of exclusion of time was upheld. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781068 Time spent in a prior civil suit could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where the appellant himself instituted and pursued that proceeding, the plaint was rejected as time-barred, and that adverse order was never challenged. Limitation for the later company appeal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was therefore computed from the date of knowledge of the disputed share transfer, making the appeal time-barred. On that basis, refusal to condone delay was found to involve no legal error, and the rejection of exclusion of time was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781068