<?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>2007 (5) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275267</link>
    <description>A plaint must be read as a whole, and its substance rather than its form determines whether it truly seeks only an injunction or in effect seeks declaration and specific performance of renewal. Renewal of a lease or agreement requires execution of a fresh document; there is no automatic renewal merely because an option is exercised. Here, the pleaded renewal was expressly denied years earlier, so the right to sue for declaration arose then. As the plaint did not seek the necessary declaratory relief and was framed as if a renewed agreement already existed, the suit was barred by limitation on the face of the record and the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275267</link>
      <description>A plaint must be read as a whole, and its substance rather than its form determines whether it truly seeks only an injunction or in effect seeks declaration and specific performance of renewal. Renewal of a lease or agreement requires execution of a fresh document; there is no automatic renewal merely because an option is exercised. Here, the pleaded renewal was expressly denied years earlier, so the right to sue for declaration arose then. As the plaint did not seek the necessary declaratory relief and was framed as if a renewed agreement already existed, the suit was barred by limitation on the face of the record and the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>