Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 578 - HIGH COURT OF DELHIWhether the complaint filed by the respondents was barred by limitation and as such was liable to be dismissed? Held that:- As it is apparent that the complaint filed by the second respondent was barred by limitation inasmuch as for the purpose of computing the time required for obtaining the sanction of the Government it was necessary for the complainant to have specified the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent/sanction for computing the period of limitation because as per the explanation only that period which could have been executed was the time required for obtaining the sanction of the Government or any other authority can only be excluded if an application is filed after a period of 6 months then the question of exclusion does not arise. As such, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the respondents. Thus, neither the order passed by the ACMM in issuing the process in this case nor the complaint can be sustained. Accordingly, the order issuing process in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner including the complaint is quashed. In view of the aforesaid the bail bond, if any, of the petitioner will stand discharged.
|