https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299347 The court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by law u/s 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found the suit maintainable against defendant No. 2 in his personal capacity, who was in unauthorized occupation of the property, and held that the application could not be allowed. Consequently, the application was rejected, allowing the suit to proceed against defendant No. 2. en-us Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299347 The court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint on the grounds that the suit was barred by law u/s 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found the suit maintainable against defendant No. 2 in his personal capacity, who was in unauthorized occupation of the property, and held that the application could not be allowed. Consequently, the application was rejected, allowing the suit to proceed against defendant No. 2. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299347