SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Kar) 366

Karnataka High Court
KARNATAKA STEEL, WIRE PRODUCTS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KOHINOOR ROLLING SHUTTERS, ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-91
COMPANY APPEAL : 133 of 1987

Advocates:
CHAITANYA HEGADE, S.M.CHANDRASEKHAR, S.Mahesh, V.G.Sabhahit, VIGHNESHVARA SHASTRY

Conflicting views on the period of limitation for claims under the Companies Act, 1956, led to a reference to a Full Bench for resolution.

Headnote:

LIMITATION - Companies Act, 1956 - Conflicting views on the period of limitation for claims under Section 446(2)(b) in light of Section 458-A - Reference to Full Bench for resolution

Fact of the Case:

Conflicting views on the period of limitation for claims under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, in relation to Section 458-A led to a reference to a Full Bench under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found conflicting views on the period of limitation and referred the question to a Full Bench for resolution.

Issues: Conflicting views on the correct period of limitation for claims under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, in light of Section 458-A.

Ratio Decidendi: The conflicting views on the period of limitation for claims under the Companies Act, 1956, necessitated a reference to a Full Bench for resolution.

Final Decision: The matter was referred to a Full Bench for hearing and answering the question on the correct period of limitation for claims under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, in light of Section 458-A.

( 1 ) AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 446 (2) (B) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, COULD BE PREFERRED HAVING REGARD TO THE provision IN SECTION 458-A OF THAT ACT, THERE ARE CONFLICTING VIEWS EXPRESSED BY several HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE DECISIONS IN THE FOLLOWING reports: 1. 1988 (63) COMPANY CASES 749;

( 2 ) 1985 (57) COMPANY CASES 742;

( 3 ) 1981 (2) KARLJ 144;

( 4 ) 1984 (56) COMPANY CASES 479;

( 5 ) AIR 1989 KANT. 41;

( 6 ) 1982 (2) KLC 1 (LAW CHRONICLE)THE AFORESAID QUESTION, NAMELY, "what IS THE CORRECT PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR CLAIMS to BE MADE UNDER SECTION 446 (2) (B) OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING REGARD TO THE provision IN SECTION 458-A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956", IS, THEREFORE, REFERRED TO A FULL BENCH UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, SEEKING ITS ANSWER. PAPERS BE PLACED BEFORE HON'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR A FULL BENCH TO BE CONSTITUTED FOR HEARING AND ANSWERING THE SAID QUESTION.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top