IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and its impact on the plaintiff's suit.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 6003/2021(u/O VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC by defendant for rejection of Suit)

I.A. 8685/2021(u/O VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC by defendant for rejection of Suit)

1. The present Applications under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") has been filed on behalf of the applicant/defendant seeking rejection of the Plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in his plaint, is that vide Letter of Appointment dated 04.09.2006 and 08.09.2006, the defendant Company which is a Joint Venture between M/s Citi Pharm K/s, Copenhagen, Demark and the Lok-Beta Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd Mumbai, offered him 3% shares as intellectual service and Directorship of the Company. Accordingly, he was issued 21,588 shares by Lok-Beta Pharmaceuticals Indian Limited (a shareholder of the defendant Company) which amounted to just over 0.888% of the total paid up capital.

3. According to the plaintiff, when he addressed the non-compliance of Governmental and Statutory Rules by the defendant Company with its other members, a Special Notice was issued against him for his removal, as per Section 284 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now section 169 of Companies Act, 2013). However, this Notice was not served to the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 24.10.2012 he was summarily and unlawfully discharged from the office of Directorship that had allegedly harmed his reputation in the industry.

4. The plaintiff thus, filed the present suit for the Recovery of money for the value of 51,273 shares of the defendant Company, as well as a compensation for the loss of reputation suffered due to termination of his Directorship in the defendant Company.

5. The defendant/applicant in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has taken a plea that the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the plaintiff has not made Lok-Beta Pharmaceuticals India Limited, the entity that issued shares in his favour, a party to the present Suit.

6. The second ground for rejection is that the suit is miserably barred by limitation. The plaintiff is seeking principal amount of Rs. 44,01,274/-along with interest at the rate of 24% from 31.03.2009. The plaintiff as per his own averments, has asserted that the cause of action arose in March, 2009, but the present Suit had been filed on 27.02.2018 i.e., after a lapse of about nine years.

7. The plaintiff has also alleged that he was removed from the Directorship of the Company on 24.10.2012. The plaintiff has further claimed that the cause of action had also arisen on 23.03.2013, when the defendant allegedly admitted to have issued 21,558 shares. Even if the cause of action is taken to have arisen in the year 2012-13 for filing the present suit, it would still be barred by limitation. Therefore, the suit is miserably barred by limitation.

8. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the Company Petition filed for the appointment of a Liquidator, was not a petition for recovery. The withdrawal of a Company petition to pursue a remedy of filing a suit for recovery, does not satisfy the conditions under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The words "or cause of a like nature" would be required to be considered ejusdem generis with earlier words "of defect in jurisdiction". Therefore, where the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Company petition, but does not do so, it cannot be said that the Court did not grant the application due to defect similar to the want of jurisdiction.

9. Reliance has been placed on judgements in Narayan Ambaji Chavan vs Hari Ganesh Navare, AIR 1930 Bom 505; Ajab Enterprises vs Jayant Vegoiles & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1991 Bom 35; Gurdit Singh & Ors. vs Munsha Singh & Ors., AIR (1997) SC 640; Yeshwant Deorao vs Walchand Ramchand, 1950 SCR 852. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Suit is liable to be rejecte