<?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>2017 (12) TMI 849 - GUJRAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352580</link>
    <description>An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is maintainable at any stage and may be decided before an application for leave to defend in a summary suit. Where the plaint is said to be non-maintainable, the court must first examine that threshold objection rather than postpone it until after leave to defend. The trial court&#039;s refusal to entertain the rejection application on the ground that the defendants could not participate before leave was granted was inconsistent with settled procedure. The order was set aside and the rejection application was directed to be heard afresh on its own merits before the leave to defend application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 849 - GUJRAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352580</link>
      <description>An application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is maintainable at any stage and may be decided before an application for leave to defend in a summary suit. Where the plaint is said to be non-maintainable, the court must first examine that threshold objection rather than postpone it until after leave to defend. The trial court&#039;s refusal to entertain the rejection application on the ground that the defendants could not participate before leave was granted was inconsistent with settled procedure. The order was set aside and the rejection application was directed to be heard afresh on its own merits before the leave to defend application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>