TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a liberal approach can facilitate the speedy disposal of pending disputes. Sometimes, technicalities hamper the Courts in the administration of justice. For that very purpose, to avoid the technical or lengthy procedure the Tribunals have been constituted. Humbly, it is further to be added that while disposing of the pending litigation the Tribunal is not bound by the lengthy procedure, either laid down in CPC or other Act, but at best be guided by the principles of natural justice. As far as this case is concerned, the Petitioner was not sleeping over its rights. That the effect of acknowledgement or the knowledge of the event as prescribed u/s. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also prima facie missing in this case because the knowledge of the said event is the bone of contention in this litigation. Undisputedly, the Main Petition under consideration has been filed u/s. 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 i.e. under the Chapter "Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement", which has not concluded or stopped or exhausted in this case in a particular year, rather in continuance; hence out of question of period of limitation. Be that as it is, the issue of applicability of Limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present Petition. 2. From the side of the Applicant, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Vikram S. Namkani has pleaded that it was wrong on the part of the Respondent Company and other Respondents to amend the Articles of Association vide a Resolution dated 30th March, 2008 and 15th December, 2012 in the absence of Mr. Ashik M. Patel and Mrs. Meena Ashik Patel. He has explained that the condition for the amendment in the Articles of Association was prescribed in Article 9 of unamended Articles of Association of the Respondent No. 1 Company. Earlier, this development was not in the knowledge of the Petitioner Company. In the correspondence exchanged with the Petitioner, it was never informed that the amendment took place in the Articles of Association. According to him the information of the said amendment was uploaded on the official portal of RoC on 18th March, 2013. Since the said information to the Petitioner Company was communicated only when the reply was submitted from the side of Respondents, then only it was decided to seek permission for the amendment in the Main Petition. 2.1 Ld. Representative has also briefly narrated the background in support of the prayer of amendment t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution was passed in the EOGM and thereupon amended the AoA of Respondent No. 1 Company as well as communicated to the concerned authorities as mandated by law. According to his vehement contentions, the attempt of amendment is nothing but an afterthought to misguide the Hon'ble Tribunal so that the Petitioner can continue with the injunction obtained vide an Order dated 29th August, 2016 passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench. 3.1 The second strong objection of the Respondent to the Application is that the alteration in AoA of Respondent No. 1 Company took place way back in the years 2008 and 2012. The amendment as demanded by the Petitioner in the year 2016 is hopelessly barred by the Law of Limitation. No sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the Petitioner to substantiate the reason of amendment that too belatedly. It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to satisfy the Hon'ble Tribunal as to why the Petitioner had not raised the issue when the Original Petition was filed and why the Petitioner has not challenged the said Resolution over all these years. Such types of Interim Applications are frivolously filed to delay the hearing. Once the pleadings are complete, the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down under the Companies Act, 2013 is by enactment of Section 433 under the title Limitation . This Section prescribes:- Limitation 433. The provisions of Limitation Act, 1964=3 (36 of 1963) shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings or appeals before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. 5.2 The phrase emphasized during arguments from the side of the Applicant is as far as may be . This phrase has wide effect on deciding the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 because undisputedly conferring large power and unfettered discretion to NCLT. The dominant purpose of introduction of this Section appears to be to minimise the litigation. However, the Hon'ble Legislators in their wisdom have not specified months/years or framed time period to carry out an amendment, as sought in this case. Hence, it can be concluded that in the absence of absolute rule or prescription of time limit in the statute, the general principles of Limitation Act, 1963 ex-facie need not to be strictly applied. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow an amendment on the ground of limitation depends upon the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties. It is a trite law that this exception is prescribed to facilitate the proceedings, if found necessary and helpful in determining the question in controversy. The amendment must not be allowed if it would result in introducing a new case or a fresh cause of action. It can also not be allowed if it would allegedly change the very nature of the Suit. 5.5 Keeping brevity in mind, to sum up the controversy, it can be safely adjudged that while deciding such type of prayers a Tribunal can avoid to adopt a hyper-technical approach. Instead, a liberal approach can facilitate the speedy disposal of pending disputes. Sometimes, technicalities hamper the Courts in the administration of justice. For that very purpose, to avoid the technical or lengthy procedure the Tribunals have been constituted. Humbly, it is further to be added that while disposing of the pending litigation the Tribunal is not bound by the lengthy procedure, either laid down in CPC or other Act, but at best be guided by the principles of natural justice 5.6 The decisions of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench cited supra are distinguishable on facts as well as on law. The basic distinction is that the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
