https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763737 A second Order VII Rule 11 application in the same suit was barred by res judicata because the earlier rejection on identical grounds had attained finality. The plaint, seeking declaration of title and partition, remained within the civil court's jurisdiction even though some company-related reliefs were consequential; Sections 241, 242 and 430 of the Companies Act did not oust civil jurisdiction over the primary reliefs, and partial rejection of a plaint was impermissible. A benami objection could not justify threshold rejection where statutory exceptions were pleaded and disputed facts required evidence. The suit was therefore fit to proceed on merits in the civil court. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763737 A second Order VII Rule 11 application in the same suit was barred by res judicata because the earlier rejection on identical grounds had attained finality. The plaint, seeking declaration of title and partition, remained within the civil court's jurisdiction even though some company-related reliefs were consequential; Sections 241, 242 and 430 of the Companies Act did not oust civil jurisdiction over the primary reliefs, and partial rejection of a plaint was impermissible. A benami objection could not justify threshold rejection where statutory exceptions were pleaded and disputed facts required evidence. The suit was therefore fit to proceed on merits in the civil court. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763737