9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned company judge has held that the petition filed under section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relating to the Krishak Cold Storage Ltd. (for brevity called "the Cold Storage" hereafter) is not barred under section 402(f) of the Act. This was an issue between the parties in the aforesaid application which has been decided first. The respondents-petitioners filed an application under section 398 of the Act, which has been numbered as Company Petition No. 9 of 1974, in which the relief sought is that the management of the company, i.e., the cold storage is conducting itself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the cold storage and the transfer dated 24th May, 1974, made in favour of Roshan Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y judge, the application had been filed within the prescribed period. The simple question, therefore, is whether the sale deed executed on 24th May, 1974, had been executed within three months before the 24th of August, 1974 ? It is not disputed by the parties that in order to answer this question, the only matter which falls for consideration is whether in computing the period within three months, 24th May, 1974, has to be included or excluded. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, appearing for the appellant, has urged that in applying the aforesaid provisions, two conditions have to be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the application should be within three months; and (ii) that the aforesaid period is to be before the date of the application. He contends that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, where the complaint with regard to the offence must be made "within three months of the date of offence", held that the day of the act or event should not be counted for computing three months. Similar view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V.S. Mehta, In re AIR 1970 AP 234. I am, therefore, of the view that the use of the words "before the date of the application" makes no difference in computing the period" within three months" as provided under section 402(f) of the Act. The date of the execution of the sale deed must be excluded. Even on general principles it has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lala Bal Mukand v. Lajwanti, AIR 1975 SC 1089, that where the language of limitation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
