Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from an order dated 01.06.2026 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which allowed an amendment application filed by Respondent No. 1, Deepak Kishan Chhabria, in Company Petition No. 47 of 2016. The appellant, Prakash P. Chhabria, contended that he and Respondent No. 1 were brothers and that a transfer of 1,00,300 shares, allegedly gifted by their father, was approved by the Board of Directors on 31.03.2016. The appellant argued that Respondent No. 1 had knowledge of this transfer and failed to seek rectification of the register of members within the limitation period, which expired on 31.03.2019. The NCLT's order allowed the amendment application, which sought to rectify the register and declare certain resolutions null and void, despite the appellant's objections regarding the limitation. The court noted that the NCLT had kept the issue of limitation open for final hearing. The appellant's counsel argued that allowing the amendment would defeat the right of limitation, citing various precedents. However, the Tribunal found no illegality in the NCLT's decision, emphasizing that the amendment was necessary to address subsequent developments and did not change the nature of the original petition. The appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT was directed to decide on the merits of the amended pleadings and the limitation issue at the appropriate stage.
Headnote
A) Company Law - Amendment Application - Limitation Period - National Company Law Tribunal allowed an amendment application despite the appellant's contention that it was barred by limitation. The Tribunal kept the issue of limitation open for final hearing, allowing the amendment as necessary for the real controversy between the parties. Held that the amendment was permissible as it related to subsequent events and did not change the nature of the original petition (Paras 12-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Company Law Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment application filed by Respondent No. 1 despite the limitation period having expired.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT was directed to decide on the merits of the amended pleadings and the limitation issue at the appropriate stage while keeping the rights and contentions of the parties open.
Law Points
- amendment application
- limitation period
- rectification of register
- substantive right
- subsequent events
