https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420965 A plaint seeking possession, declaratory and injunctive reliefs over immovable property was held maintainable where the relief could be enforced by personal obedience, part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, and one property was situated in Delhi. Threshold rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was held unwarranted because the civil title and infringement disputes were not fully covered by company-law proceedings, Section 430 did not bar the suit, and a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Allegations of undervaluation and court-fee deficiency also did not justify rejection at the outset where valuation was only estimated and any deficiency could be made good later. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:09:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420965 A plaint seeking possession, declaratory and injunctive reliefs over immovable property was held maintainable where the relief could be enforced by personal obedience, part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, and one property was situated in Delhi. Threshold rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was held unwarranted because the civil title and infringement disputes were not fully covered by company-law proceedings, Section 430 did not bar the suit, and a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Allegations of undervaluation and court-fee deficiency also did not justify rejection at the outset where valuation was only estimated and any deficiency could be made good later. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420965