Kuldeep Singh vs Saini Gold Retreaders Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 72 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 that complains of oppression and mismanagement arising from an event (here, an AGM held in 2009) is time-barred where the petition is filed nine years later and nothing in the record shows that the impugned act has continued to take effect or that any decision taken at that meeting has been acted upon within the limitation period, so that a plea of continuing cause of action fails.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Kuldeep Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Saini Cold Retreaders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present :
For Appellant : Mr. Atul Kumar, Mr. Arun Gaur and Mr. Ishaan Dewan, Advocates
ORDER
18.03.2019 The appellant filed an application under Section 241 and 242
of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging the acts of 'oppression and
mismanagement' to the Annual General Meeting proposed to be held on 30th
September, 2009 and the appellant alleged that he had not received any notice
of the meeting. It is further alleged that after the period of 9 years when the
Annual Return or necessary Form was filed by the Company in the same year
with the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the matter was notified.
2. The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') taking in to consideration that the acts
alleged relates to the year 2009 and that the application filed under Section 241
and 242 of the Companies Act was barred by Limitation Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a continuous
cause of action. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that act of
oppression and the meeting held on 30th September, 2009 has not been given effect or any action by the company or any of the decision was taken at the AGM
held on 30th September, 2009 which was under challenge in the petition under
Section 241 and 242 in the year 2018 i.e. after 9 years. We hold that the
application is barred by limitation and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
appeal.
In the facts and circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
/ns/gc/
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free