2003 (10) TMI 407 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of parallel proceedings in two forums.
2. Timeliness of compensation petitions filed by the petitioner.
3. Application of a reasonable period for filing claims under Section 12B of the MRTP Act.
4. Jurisdiction and appeal process under Section 55 of the MRTP Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Parallel Proceedings in Two Forums:
The respondents argued that the petitioner cannot initiate parallel proceedings in two forums, specifically arbitration proceedings in court and compensation applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act. The Commission upheld this preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner must choose one forum and cannot engage in forum shopping. The Commission dismissed the cases on this ground of maintainability.

2. Timeliness of Compensation Petitions:
The central issue was whether the compensation petitions, filed more than five years after the cause of action arose, were barred by limitation. The Commission and the respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Corporation Bank v. Navin J. Shah, which held that claims must be filed within a reasonable time even if no specific limitation period is prescribed. The Commission consistently followed this precedent and dismissed the petitions as time-barred, applying a three-year limitation period by analogy to Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

3. Application of a Reasonable Period for Filing Claims:
The petitioner contended that the Commission erred in applying a three-year limitation period without examining the specific facts and circumstances of each case. However, the court noted that the claims were essentially for money and should be filed within a reasonable time, which was determined to be three years based on legislative wisdom and consistent judicial interpretation. The court upheld the Commission's application of this standard, finding no reason to interfere with the judgment.

4. Jurisdiction and Appeal Process under Section 55 of the MRTP Act:
The respondents also argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because Section 55 of the MRTP Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court, offering an efficacious alternate remedy. The court did not specifically address this argument in detail, focusing instead on the timeliness and maintainability issues.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, agreeing with the Commission's application of a three-year limitation period for filing compensation claims under Section 12B of the MRTP Act. The court emphasized that claims must be filed within a reasonable time, typically three years, even when no statutory limit is prescribed. The court also suggested that the legislature consider specifying limitation periods in various acts to avoid uncertainty and unnecessary litigation.