Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1536 - HC - Companies LawBenefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 - burden to prove good faith and due diligence to avail benefit of Section 14(1) - Held that:- Undoubtedly, there has to be a liberal interpretation of Section 14(1) to advance the cause of justice. However, in accordance with Section 14(1) of Act, 1963, the earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue, i.e. a matter which is directly and substantially in issue. Also, the previous proceeding should have failed on account of defect of jurisdiction or other causes of a like nature. The Supreme Court in Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu AIR [1958 (4) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT] has further held that the burden to prove good faith and due diligence to avail benefit of Section 14(1), is on the plaintiff. In the present case, the reliefs sought in the Company Petition and Company Appl. filed before the CLB were absolutely distinct and different based on different cause of action from the reliefs which plaintiffs seek in the present suit. While the subject matter of the Company Petition and Company Appl. was the violation of the Code, 1997, the subject matter of the present suit is the breach of the Inter Se Agreement. Consequently, the reliefs in both the proceedings were not the same. Further, plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 were not parties to the CLB proceedings and plaintiff no. 1 is not a party to the Inter Se Agreement. The CLB also did not dismiss the Company Petition due to defect of jurisdiction or other causes of the like nature. Consequently, plaintiffs are not entitled to benefit of Section 14(1) of the Act, 1963 and the present suit is barred by limitation.
|