https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465214 A plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 when its own averments show the suit is barred by limitation. Here, the pleaded facts showed that the alleged fraud and transfer of shares were known by 2009, or at the latest by 2010, so Article 58 made the suit filed in 2015 time-barred; Section 17 did not extend time merely because fraud was pleaded, and later notice or a commission report did not revive limitation. The reliefs, in substance, sought rectification of the register of members and related company-law declarations, which fell within the Companies Act, 2013. The civil court's jurisdiction was therefore barred by Section 430, and the Orissa HC sustained rejection of the plaint. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:07:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465214 A plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 when its own averments show the suit is barred by limitation. Here, the pleaded facts showed that the alleged fraud and transfer of shares were known by 2009, or at the latest by 2010, so Article 58 made the suit filed in 2015 time-barred; Section 17 did not extend time merely because fraud was pleaded, and later notice or a commission report did not revive limitation. The reliefs, in substance, sought rectification of the register of members and related company-law declarations, which fell within the Companies Act, 2013. The civil court's jurisdiction was therefore barred by Section 430, and the Orissa HC sustained rejection of the plaint. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465214