https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410972 A plaint was held liable to rejection where it disclosed a prior merits-based adjudication on the same family arrangement and share dispute, and where the reliefs substantially fell within the Companies Act, 2013 framework governed by the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Sections 241 and 242 placed the controversy before the statutory forum, while Section 430 barred civil court entertainment of such matters. The prior decision also triggered res judicata and issue estoppel because the relevant issues had already been determined in substance. The court rejected the argument that only part of the plaint could be struck out, holding that the suit as framed was barred in its entirety and had to fail under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:07:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410972 A plaint was held liable to rejection where it disclosed a prior merits-based adjudication on the same family arrangement and share dispute, and where the reliefs substantially fell within the Companies Act, 2013 framework governed by the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Sections 241 and 242 placed the controversy before the statutory forum, while Section 430 barred civil court entertainment of such matters. The prior decision also triggered res judicata and issue estoppel because the relevant issues had already been determined in substance. The court rejected the argument that only part of the plaint could be struck out, holding that the suit as framed was barred in its entirety and had to fail under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410972