https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174856 A plaint in an admiralty action was held not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 because its averments, taken as true at the demurrer stage, disclosed a cause of action and a maritime claim capable of supporting an action in rem. The Court accepted allegations that the vessel was represented as ready to load, loading failed due to defective cranes, the Master refused to complete loading and declined to issue a bill of lading, and loss followed. The Court also held that an earlier interlocutory determination that the claim was maritime in nature, not appealed from and acted upon by furnishing security, could not be reopened in the same proceedings; res judicata and estoppel barred re-agitation. The refusal to dismiss the suit was upheld with a limited indemnity-bond requirement. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:13:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174856 A plaint in an admiralty action was held not liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 because its averments, taken as true at the demurrer stage, disclosed a cause of action and a maritime claim capable of supporting an action in rem. The Court accepted allegations that the vessel was represented as ready to load, loading failed due to defective cranes, the Master refused to complete loading and declined to issue a bill of lading, and loss followed. The Court also held that an earlier interlocutory determination that the claim was maritime in nature, not appealed from and acted upon by furnishing security, could not be reopened in the same proceedings; res judicata and estoppel barred re-agitation. The refusal to dismiss the suit was upheld with a limited indemnity-bond requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174856