Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Kuldeep Singh vs Saini Gold Retreaders Pvt Ltd & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal18 March 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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) No. 72 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

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