TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Respondent No. 1 Company and contends that through he was allotted the said 500 shares, the said share certificates were actually handed over to him and that only a Delivery Memo dated 31.03.2025 was received by him, which has been utilized by him as to be a document to establish that, he was a holder of the shares, in Respondent No. 1 Company. 2. In the instant Company Appeal, the Appellant questions the propriety of the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 as it was passed IA (CA) / 103 / 2022 in Company Appeal (IB) / 9 / 59 / HDB / 2022. The Appellant had filed the said Application before Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad, in Company Appeal (IB) / 9 / 59 / HDB / 2022, which was also filed by the Appellant under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the legal advice, which was extended, he had opted to file a Commercial Civil Suit, being Commercial Civil Suit, being Commercial Suit No. 90 / 2019, before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara, which was instituted on 14.06.2019, seeking a recovery of Rs.3 Crores from the Respondents in lieu of share value and the interest that would be payable on it. The said suit was dismissed by an order of 05.10.2021 of the Ld. Commercial Court on the ground, that the proceedings drawn before the Commercial Court on 14.06.2019, was barred by limitation, having computed the period of limitation from the date when the Appellant had received the response to the notice given by him. 7. The said finding, which has been re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned Order dated 25.04.2023, holding thereof that, the proceedings would not be maintainable having been preferred at a belated stage with the delay of 308 days, in filing the Company Appeal. 9. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that, the Appellant would be entitled for the grant of benefit of provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, owing to the fact that the proceedings preferred by the Appellant by way of Commercial Civil Suit No. 90 of 2019 was under a wrong advice and under a bonafide belief and hence, the period which was spent in pursuing the proceedings before the Commercial Court, deserves to be excluded while determining the aspect of limitation in the light of the provisions contained und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....963. 12. There is yet an another important feature, which is to be taken into consideration, that in the finding, which has been recorded by the Ld. Tribunal in Para 10 of the Impugned Order, it has been observed that, the Appellant had the knowledge of the transfer of the said shares as back as on 11.05.2016, that the suit before the Commercial Court was instituted much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, that the Commercial Court dismissed the said Suit as barred by limitation, and that seeking a condonation of delay which has already been rejected by a competent Court on 05.10.2021, would be tantamount to settling on Appeal over the order of the Civil Court which is not provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermitted to be recurringly agitated by a preference of a subsequent Appeal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, before Ld. NCLT. 14. The period of limitation as prescribed under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, to be read with Section 3 & Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be determined from the date when the knowledge was attributed to the Appellant, about the so called wrongful transfer of shares, which apparently in the instant case is 11.05.2016, if that be so, the period of limitation for the purposes of an Appeal under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, would have expired long back and the Appeal would too be barred by limitation. Hence, the findings that has been recorded by the Ld. Tribunal, dismissi....