Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1003 - AT - Companies LawTime limitation - oppression and mismanagement - Respondents have neither appeared before this Appellate Tribunal in compliance to notices served upon them to contest the grounds urged for reversal of the impugned order nor appear to have produced any document before the Tribunal in support of their plea that whenever they acquired shares from other parties - whether the petition before the Tribunal was barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- While it cannot be disputed that the restrictions imposed upon Private Companies in regard to transfer of shares enjoins upon the Shareholder desirous of selling away his share to follow the procedure laid down in the Articles of Association of the Company, the issue of limitation affecting the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal has to be addressed irrespective of the fact that the same has been set up as a defense or not. It is well settled that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The case setup by the Appellants before the Tribunal clearly indicates that Appellant No. 1 had received a special notice on 23rd February, 2006 for his removal from Directorship of the Company to which he responded. Finally he was removed from Directorship of the Company and same was notified to ROC by filing Form No. 32. This instance, though not the solitary one, in itself knocks the bottom of the contention raised on behalf of Appellants that they were not aware of the alleged acts of oppression at the hands of Respondents. It would be absurd to entertain the plea that after removal of Appellant No. 1 from Directorship of the Company, the Appellants should be waiting for its long term effects to file a Company Petition alleging oppression and mismanagement. Even if cause of action is assumed to be continuing till 2009, though we don’t hold so, the Company Petition filed by the Appellants is hit by limitation. The impugned order not shown to be erroneous, muchless perverse, does not warrant interference - appeal dismissed.
|