Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.55 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 446 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 29 October, 1976
(9) This takes me to the consideration of the second issue as to whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in the filing of the application by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1 have set out earlier the grounds on which the applicant is seeking condensation of delay. Apart from general allegations that the accounts of the company were incomplete and that the statement of affairs was given to the Official Liquidator only very late, the main ground on which the applicant seeks condensation of delay is that he was under a bona fide impression that there was no period of limitation for filing claims under Section 446 of the Companies Act and that it was only after the position was recently clarified by a decision of the Supreme Court that it was realised that Article 137 would apply in the case of such applications and that therefore C.A. 137/74 was likely to be treated as time barred. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to is the judgment in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T. P. Kunhaliaumma, . The above decision of the Supreme Court was no doubt rendered on 29th October, 1976 but it has been reported in the J977 parts of A.I.R. Reading the rejoinder filed by the Official Liquidator on 2nd May, 1977 and the contents of application C.A. 518/77 which was filed on 19th July, 1977 together, it is clear that the awareness that Article 137 would apply also to petitions under Section 446 came to the applicant only about this lime. The question is whether these circumstances would justify the condensation of delay in the filing of the application. This issue has been touched upon by Anand J. in the decision earlier preferred to in para 12 : "The first of these subsidiary question is as to whether in the rather nebulous state of the law of limitation in relation to proceedings under the Act even after the Act of 1963 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council.
Town Municipal Council, Athani vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ... on 20 March, 1969
(10) I am inclined, after hearing the parties, to agree with the prima facie view expressed by Anand J. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli and others etc., continued to hold the field until the Supreme Court clarified, in the Kerala Electricity case (Supra) that, having regard to the change brought about by the Act of 1963, Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. In these circumstances and having regard to the terms of the Explanation to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1 am of opinion that there was sufficient cause within the meaning of the Section to admit this petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The second issue is, therefore.. decided in favor of the applicant.