https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199158 A plaint alleging misrepresentation and restitutionary relief was held to disclose a viable cause of action at the rejection stage. The court confined itself to the plaint averments and accompanying material, and found that the pleaded receipt of amounts for rent differential and renovation expenses, coupled with the allegation of unjust enrichment, was sufficient to require adjudication on merits. Restitutionary principles under Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were noted as supporting the pleaded claim. The suit was therefore not liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:58:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199158 A plaint alleging misrepresentation and restitutionary relief was held to disclose a viable cause of action at the rejection stage. The court confined itself to the plaint averments and accompanying material, and found that the pleaded receipt of amounts for rent differential and renovation expenses, coupled with the allegation of unjust enrichment, was sufficient to require adjudication on merits. Restitutionary principles under Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were noted as supporting the pleaded claim. The suit was therefore not liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199158