https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548 Section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 was treated as a mandatory notice requirement, but it was distinguished from section 80 CPC because it contains no equivalent provision for leave or dispensation of notice, so no deemed waiver could be inferred from section 80 practice. The court also stressed that, on an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, it must look only at the plaint averments and cannot resolve disputed questions on whether the impugned acts were within the petitioner's statutory powers. As the plaint itself did not conclusively show a bar of law, rejection of the plaint was not justified. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548 Section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 was treated as a mandatory notice requirement, but it was distinguished from section 80 CPC because it contains no equivalent provision for leave or dispensation of notice, so no deemed waiver could be inferred from section 80 practice. The court also stressed that, on an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, it must look only at the plaint averments and cannot resolve disputed questions on whether the impugned acts were within the petitioner's statutory powers. As the plaint itself did not conclusively show a bar of law, rejection of the plaint was not justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310548