Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2019 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1318 - Tri - Companies LawWinding up of company - oppression and mismanagement - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Upon perusing section 433 of the Companies Act, we are of the considered opinion that the period of 3 (three) years as provided under article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the present case and the present petition being filed on June 12, 2018 questioning the past 20 years actions of respondent No. 2 having their knowledge is barred by limitation and accordingly, the above issue is decided against the petitioners. The entire averments of the petition clearly disclose that the petitioners have some grievances in respect of allotment of shares owned by their parents in respondent No. 1-company as well as some other companies for which the petitioners have to initiate necessary proceedings for issue of succession certificates in their favour. As seen from the original annual return dated March 31, 1995 submitted by the father of the petitioners, as rightly contended by the respondents, the name of Bagasa Industries P. Ltd., is clearly mentioned as a company holding 1,000 shares in respondent No. 1-company. Since, the annual return as well as the covering letter addressed to the Registrar of Companies, Shillong are more than 30 years old documents this Tribunal did not find any reason to reject the above evidence. The above annual return makes it very clear that 1,000 shares were allotted to Bagasa Industries P. Ltd., even during the life time of the father of the petitioners and the petitioners without knowing the facts nor the affairs of respondent No. 1-company, filed the above petition with all suspicion, presumptions and assumptions on account of inter se disputes between the parties. The petitioners have not placed any evidence before this Tribunal to prove that they have demanded notice of meetings from respondent No. 1-company and in the absence of any proof this Tribunal has no option except to believe that the respondents have sent notices to the petitioners for meetings as they have submitted the copies of the notices to the statutory authorities while filing the annual returns - this Tribunal is of the considered view that the above company petition for oppression and mismanagement when the company is not carrying on any business, does not fall within the domain of sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act and is liable to be rejected. Petition dismissed - Decided against petitioners.
|