https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96935 The court holds that returning a plaint under Order VII, rule 10 was procedurally erroneous where the judge relied on an unexamined view of absence of cause of action; the correct remedy, if established, would have been dismissal, not return, and the plaint must proceed. The court further clarifies that jurisdiction conferred by the Companies Act is confined to matters arising under that Act and does not oust ordinary civil jurisdiction for other causes of action; accordingly the requirement to file in District Court under the Companies Act was not applicable and the appeal is allowed. en-us Thu, 02 May 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:17:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96935 The court holds that returning a plaint under Order VII, rule 10 was procedurally erroneous where the judge relied on an unexamined view of absence of cause of action; the correct remedy, if established, would have been dismissal, not return, and the plaint must proceed. The court further clarifies that jurisdiction conferred by the Companies Act is confined to matters arising under that Act and does not oust ordinary civil jurisdiction for other causes of action; accordingly the requirement to file in District Court under the Companies Act was not applicable and the appeal is allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 May 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96935