TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 3 years for institution of any suit which according to him has exhausted in this case. The Petitioner was also aware about the shareholding hence not entitled to raise the objection after lapse of so many years. In his opinion it is a settled law that Petition filed for "Oppression and Mismanagement" if suffers from delay and laches is barred by limitation. In support he has cited a decision of NCLT, Principle Bench, New Delhi pronounced in the case of M/s. ABRO Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Delhi Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (CP No. 41(ND)/2016 Order dated 22/12/2016. Reliance was also placed on following two decisions:- (i) Petitioner: Kamlesh Babu & Ors. v/s. Respondent: Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors. (Appeal (civil) 2815 of 2008) Judgement dated 16th April, 2008. (ii) Praveen Shankaralayam v/s. Elan Professional Appliance (P) Ltd. ((2016) 76 taxmann. Com. 290 (NCLT-New Delhi) Judgement dated 20th October, 2016. 3. From the side of the Respondent/Petitioner it is pleaded that the Provision 433 of Companies Act do not apply on each and every case. Rather as per the language of the section 'as the case may be' the question of limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the Respondent to the Application is that the alteration in AoA of Respondent No. 1 Company took place way back in the years 2008 and 2012. The amendment as demanded by the Petitioner in the year 2016 is hopelessly barred by the Law of Limitation. No sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the Petitioner to substantiate the reason of amendment that too belatedly. It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to satisfy the Hon'ble Tribunal as to why the Petitioner had not raised the issue when the Original Petition was filed and why the Petitioner has not challenged the said Resolution over all these years. Such types of Interim Applications are frivolously filed to delay the hearing. Once the pleadings are complete, the right to file Interim Application has already foreclosed. On the question of limitation, vehement reliance has been placed on the following Case Laws/precedents and notifications.:- "1. M/s. ABRO Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Delhi Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. CP. No. 41(ND)/2016 CA No. National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Chief Justice M.M. Kumar, Hon'ble President, Sh. R. Vardharajan, Hon'ble Member (J). Decided on 22....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". This phrase has wide effect on deciding the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 because undisputedly conferring large power and unfettered discretion to NCLT The dominant purpose of introduction of this Section appears to be to minimise the litigation. However, the Hon'ble Legislators in their wisdom have not specified months/years or framed time period to carry out an amendment, as sought in this case. Hence, it can be concluded that in the absence of absolute rule or prescription of time limit in the statute, the general principles of Limitation Act, 1963 ex-facie need not to be strictly applied. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow an amendment on the ground of limitation depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case to be exercised on a judicious evaluation. If the granting of an amendment really sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, then there is no harm that the same should be allowed, especially when there is no straightjacket formula of counting the time period is prescribed in the statute itself. 5.3 During arguments, the Ld. Counsel of both the sides have also ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, it can be safely adjudged that while deciding such type of prayers a Tribunal can avoid to adopt a hyper-technical approach. Instead, a liberal approach can facilitate the speedy disposal of pending disputes. Sometimes, technicalities hamper the Courts in the administration of justice. For that very purpose, to avoid the technical or lengthy procedure the Tribunals have been constituted. Humbly, it is further to be added that while disposing of the pending litigation the Tribunal is not bound by the lengthy procedure, either laid down in CPC or other Act, but at best be guided by the principles of natural justice. 5.6 The decisions of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench cited supra are distinguishable on facts as well as on law. The basic distinction is that the Respondents are not challenging the main Petition on the legal ground of maintainability. All the decisions of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench are on the fundamental question of maintainability of the Petition itself held to be barred by limitation. On the contrary, the Respondents in this case have not challenged the maintainability of the Main Petition itself on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, but c....