https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111484 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint itself, on its face and without disputed questions, shows that the suit is barred by law. The Madras HC held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action at Chennai, including allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, suppression of material facts, wrongful removal from directorship, and disputed share transfer. Those jurisdictional objections depended on factual disputes, including where the cause of action arose and the plaintiff's shareholding status, and could not be decided at the rejection stage. The availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself bar civil court jurisdiction for the reliefs claimed. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:55:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111484 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint itself, on its face and without disputed questions, shows that the suit is barred by law. The Madras HC held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action at Chennai, including allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, suppression of material facts, wrongful removal from directorship, and disputed share transfer. Those jurisdictional objections depended on factual disputes, including where the cause of action arose and the plaintiff's shareholding status, and could not be decided at the rejection stage. The availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself bar civil court jurisdiction for the reliefs claimed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111484