https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308703 A plaint alleging collusion, fraud and diversion of funds by corporate actors and their directors was held to disclose a plausible cause of action when read as a whole, so rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(a) was not justified. The Court also found that the fraud pleadings were sufficiently particularised for threshold purposes because the plaint set out the material circumstances of the alleged wrongdoing. Joinder of the appellant directors, including nominee directors, was permissible in a composite suit involving connected contractual and tortious claims, and the immunity plea under Section 3 of the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958 could not bar the suit at the outset because it raised disputed factual issues for trial. en-us Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:25:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308703 A plaint alleging collusion, fraud and diversion of funds by corporate actors and their directors was held to disclose a plausible cause of action when read as a whole, so rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(a) was not justified. The Court also found that the fraud pleadings were sufficiently particularised for threshold purposes because the plaint set out the material circumstances of the alleged wrongdoing. Joinder of the appellant directors, including nominee directors, was permissible in a composite suit involving connected contractual and tortious claims, and the immunity plea under Section 3 of the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958 could not bar the suit at the outset because it raised disputed factual issues for trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308703