Sudha Commercial Company Ltd vs Milkfood Ltd. & Ors

Sudha Commercial Company Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Milkfood Ltd. & Ors. Respondents

Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Kumarjeet Banerjee and Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocates.

ORDER

24.08.2017- This appeal has been preferred by appellant/ petitioner

against the order dated 27th June, 2017 passed by National Company Law

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), Chandigarh Bench in

Company Application Nos. 21 and 9 of 2016 in Company Petition No.

28/Chd/PB. /2016. By the impugned order, the petition for amendment

filed by the appellant/ petitioner has been partly allowed.

2. From the record and submissions on behalf of the appellant, we find

that the Tribunal while allowed part amendment as were sought for, the

prayer with regard to transaction of land which took place in the year 2007

has not been allowed.

3. On 21st August, 2017, Ld. Counsel for the appellant was asked to

address the Court as to how the transaction of land taken place in the year

2007 can be taken into consideration in view of Limitation prescribed

under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013.

-2-

4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on

wrong perception that the matter related to transaction of land took place

in the year 2007, the Tribunal has rejected the part of the prayer as was

made in the petition for amendment. According to Ld. Counsel for the

appellant, certain acts of oppression has taken place subsequently with

regard to shareholding of the members. However, such submissions

cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Tribunal only rejected the

part of the petition for amendment relating to transaction of land as made

in the year 2007. If any pleading has already been made by the appellant

in the original Company Petition with regard to any change of shareholding

etc., or in the petition for amendment as allowed, it is open to the appellant

to raise all such issues during the final hearing.

5. In view of the fact that part of the amendment as sought for was

•barred by limitation, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and

circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Balvinder Singh) Member(Technical) ar