Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2019 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 486 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - no notice of any annual general meeting was given to the petitioner since the year 2002 and that the affairs of the company are being run in a fraudulent and oppressive manner - company is hiding the business transactions and has taken major decisions after the year 2002, including regularisation and change of designation of the directors - as contended that the petitioners maintained complete silence for more than 20 years in relation to the affairs of the company and suddenly woke up from their slumber in August, 2005 only with a view to grab the property of the company - Limitation Act, 1963 applicability - HELD THAT:- Section 433 of the Act says that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals, before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. As decided in Esquire Electronics v. Netherlands India Communications Enterprises Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 1107 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL] for the petitions based on such allegations, article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply and the period would be three years from the date when right to sue accrues. It was further held that section 5 of the Limitation Act with regard to condonation of delay would not apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal as it is the original court of jurisdiction and the petitions before it under sections 241 and 242 are in the nature of suits. The adjudication by the Tribunal would result into passing of a decree which is executable by virtue of sections 424 and 425. Tribunal rightly held that the decisions in the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Act, are enforceable like decree and for all purposes, is suit within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure. It was also affirmed that article 113 of the Limitation Act, providing a period of three years would be attracted. The petitioner has attached copy of notice of the extraordinary general meeting proposed to be held on June 30, 2009 annexure P10, for service to all the members of the company. The petitioner has simply alleged that he has not received any notice of the meeting after a period of 9 years when even the annual return or necessary Form was filed by the company in the same year with the portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In Part III of the petition, it is stated that the instant petition is not barred by limitation or laches as the effect of oppression and mismanagement and other fraudulent acts are of continuous nature and this is occurring on the day-to-day basis. The petitioner did not specify in this paragraph as to when he acquired the knowledge of the allotment of additional shares or increase in the capital. In the absence thereof, it can be safely deduced that the petitioner was well aware of the increase in the share capital decided by respondent No. 1-company soon after it was resolved in the year 2009 itself. The instant petition is found to be hopelessly time barred and therefore, deserved to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid finding, we also reject the prayer made by the petitioner in the application filed under section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 for waiver of the eligibility conditions in filing the petition under section 241 of the Act, having rendered infructuous.
|