<?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>1991 (10) TMI 321 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198806</link>
    <description>A plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where a meaningful reading shows no material facts disclosing an enforceable cause of action. General allegations of deceit require particulars of false representation, reliance and damage; passing off cannot be invoked as a consumer grievance; public nuisance needs a legally cognisable basis and special damage; and industrial policy guidelines do not by themselves create a civil right. Allegations of unfair trade practice fall within the special statutory regime rather than an ordinary civil suit. The impugned order was also unsustainable because it did not give intelligible reasons addressing the decisive pleading issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:46:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 321 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198806</link>
      <description>A plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where a meaningful reading shows no material facts disclosing an enforceable cause of action. General allegations of deceit require particulars of false representation, reliance and damage; passing off cannot be invoked as a consumer grievance; public nuisance needs a legally cognisable basis and special damage; and industrial policy guidelines do not by themselves create a civil right. Allegations of unfair trade practice fall within the special statutory regime rather than an ordinary civil suit. The impugned order was also unsustainable because it did not give intelligible reasons addressing the decisive pleading issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>