https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389410 The Court rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1. The suit was not barred under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, as it did not involve refusal to register or transfer shares. The Court considered the suit's limitation under Article 93 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and emphasized the need for evidence regarding family arrangement and testamentary disposition issues. The application under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was abandoned, and the interpretation of Section 58 was pivotal in the judgment. The Court dismissed the revisional application without awarding costs. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389410 The Court rejected the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1. The suit was not barred under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, as it did not involve refusal to register or transfer shares. The Court considered the suit's limitation under Article 93 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and emphasized the need for evidence regarding family arrangement and testamentary disposition issues. The application under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was abandoned, and the interpretation of Section 58 was pivotal in the judgment. The Court dismissed the revisional application without awarding costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389410