application ought to have been filed within 3 years from the date when the cause of action arose by applying Art 137 of the Limitation Act. In Surinder Singh Bindra and others v. M/s. Hindustan Fasteners (P.) Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1990 Del 32, it was held that Art 137 of the Limitation Act was applicable, but where the acts complained of consisted in a continuing wrong, even an act that had commenced 3 years before the presentation of the petition could be taken notice. In this case, the act complained of is the failure of the petitioner to accede to transmisssion of share of the legal representatives, the persons did not resort to the procedure prescribed under section 111 of the Companies Act. The non-issue of notice, increase of share capital and the non-offer of additional shares constitute a bundle of successive actions forming part of the same transaction and the respondent No.1 who was admittedly a member and who complained of non-service did not chose to take action within 3 years after they knew about the appellants alloting to themselves the additional shares. Under such circumstances, it should only be held that the petitioners were not only barred by limitation; being guilty of laches, the extraordinary remedy available under the Companies Act on mismanagement could not be granted in favour of the petitioners. For the same reason, the impeachment of the appointment of the Additional Director namely of the 8th respondent ought to fail.
