TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumption that the delay is deliberate. To be the laches delay should be such that it could be said that the petitioner is not entitled to relief on account of gross negligence or inaction or want of bona fide imputable to him or that he has given up(waived) his right by acquiescence or by his conduct or neglect. The petitioner has totally failed to explain his silence and inaction from 1981 till filing of the instant case - Under such situation, even if I calculate as of 2005, the date of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 and 2009 on which date the petitioners' share was shown as 10,000 in the Annual Return, then even the petitioner has failed to surmount the delay of 6 years in bringing his claim. The case of the petitioner is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany petition on the point of limitation apart from the fact that the petition is filed on the self same cause of action in view of the fact that the petitioner allowed CP No. 686/2010(filed by the father of the petitioner No. 1) to get it abated even after filing the Company Application No. 116/2012 on the death of his father, Mr. MP Sinha to implead him as party. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the same set of advocates is also representing the petitioner in the present company petition. 4. Before entering into the merit of the case. I find if expedient to first deal with the point of limitation i.e. whether the petition is barred by unreasonable delay and laches, as raised by the respondent in the instant application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Citizen in 2001 (Annexure - E - Page 140 of the petition). 7. Further, on perusal of the documents filed by the Respondents in the Company Application at page No. 96, Annexure G, it reflects that the petitioner No. 1 has transferred 10,000 Nos. of shares in favour of Smt. Shanti Sinha (now deceased) mother of petitioner No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 1, sometime on 15-09-1997. The Respondents/applicants further submitted that the petitioner No. 2 had never been the shareholder of the company. 8. On meticulous perusal of the record, the basis on which the petitioner are claiming there shares, are Annual Return of 2006 and 2009, wherein their share is reflected as 10,000 Nos. each which was, as per the version of the Respondents was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is evident that the statements are self-contradictory. 13. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot turn back and invoke equitable jurisdiction at belated stage. 14. When the petitioner transferred his share to his mother on 15-09-1997 (Annexure G, Page 96 of the application) and further the petitioner himself admitted, while addressing letter to the Board of Director on 29-01-2007, that as already intimated in 1997, my residential status has changed to NRI and now I am a PIO card Holder with Canadian citizenship (Annexure D Page 138 and 139 of the petition). 15. With regard to the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 in the year 2005, the petitioner himself acquiesced this act by not challenging till 2015, though in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Khetan Ors. vi) (2005) 11 SCC 73 - Smt. Claude-Lila Parelekar Vs. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. Ors. There is no dispute with regard to the case laws cited by either of the parties but I do not find any reason to reflect in detail all of them as each case turns to its own facts and circumstances. 16. This Court cannot preclude from dealing with the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Delay and laches do apply which starts from the date of knowledge. The doctrine of laches is based on equitable consideration and depends on general principle of justice and fair play. There is no presumption that the delay is deliberate. To be the laches delay should be such that it could be said that the petitioner is not entitled to reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in equitable jurisdiction, the maximum period of limitation can reasonably held to be the same as has been provided by the limitation Act and therefore a huge delay and laches cannot be surmounted. Due to passage of time of about 6 years, the point of equity cannot be considered as because when litigant is not vigilant about rights and have acquiescent the act of the respondent(s) and he same is also relied in a case bearing No. 4/ND/2016 by the Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, President, Shri M.M. Kumar and the Hon'ble Member, Shri S.K. Mohapatra, wherein the point of delay/laches has been elaborately dealt with. This principle embodied in the equity's maxim Delay defeats Equity and in the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
