<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (7) TMI 1029 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194111</link>
    <description>A plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when, on its own averments, it fails to disclose a complete cause of action or otherwise meets a statutory ground for rejection. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead all material facts, including the contractual basis of the claim, the relevant agreement, and the authority of any alleged agent or power of attorney holder. Here, the pleadings were deficient because the authority to execute the agreement for sale was not properly shown or produced, and the foundational facts were missing. The plaint was therefore rightly rejected against the first defendant, and the appellate reversal could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1029 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194111</link>
      <description>A plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when, on its own averments, it fails to disclose a complete cause of action or otherwise meets a statutory ground for rejection. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead all material facts, including the contractual basis of the claim, the relevant agreement, and the authority of any alleged agent or power of attorney holder. Here, the pleadings were deficient because the authority to execute the agreement for sale was not properly shown or produced, and the foundational facts were missing. The plaint was therefore rightly rejected against the first defendant, and the appellate reversal could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>