https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288128 A plaint in an admiralty in rem action was not rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) because the pleaded supply of bunkers to the vessel, the contractual reference to the vessel's faith and credit, and the claimed lien were enough to disclose an arguable cause of action at the threshold. The court would not finally resolve disputed questions on charter party terms or rival admiralty authorities at that stage. Alleged nondisclosure of foreign in personam proceedings and prior payments also did not establish material suppression or fraud, because the in rem claim was treated as independent and the materials did not conclusively show satisfaction of the claim or deliberate concealment sufficient to vacate the arrest. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2020 10:19:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288128 A plaint in an admiralty in rem action was not rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) because the pleaded supply of bunkers to the vessel, the contractual reference to the vessel's faith and credit, and the claimed lien were enough to disclose an arguable cause of action at the threshold. The court would not finally resolve disputed questions on charter party terms or rival admiralty authorities at that stage. Alleged nondisclosure of foreign in personam proceedings and prior payments also did not establish material suppression or fraud, because the in rem claim was treated as independent and the materials did not conclusively show satisfaction of the claim or deliberate concealment sufficient to vacate the arrest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288128