https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763624 A plaint founded on sale deeds already adjudicated as void was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC because it disclosed no sustainable cause of action. The earlier final judgment had held the first sale deed to be bogus and sham and the later sale deed to convey no title, so the suit could not be maintained on those documents. The court also treated the plaintiff company's failure to disclose that prior adjudication, while suggesting the earlier suit was pending, as a material suppression amounting to misleading conduct. The explanation that the company was unaware of its strike off was rejected, and continuation of the suit was held to be an abuse of process. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:28:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763624 A plaint founded on sale deeds already adjudicated as void was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC because it disclosed no sustainable cause of action. The earlier final judgment had held the first sale deed to be bogus and sham and the later sale deed to convey no title, so the suit could not be maintained on those documents. The court also treated the plaintiff company's failure to disclose that prior adjudication, while suggesting the earlier suit was pending, as a material suppression amounting to misleading conduct. The explanation that the company was unaware of its strike off was rejected, and continuation of the suit was held to be an abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763624