https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465213 At the Order VII Rule 11 stage, the Court confined itself to the plaint and held that limitation and alleged suppression could not justify rejection because the pleaded dates of knowledge and the effect of pandemic limitation extensions raised disputed factual questions for trial. The civil suit was also not barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, as the reliefs went beyond simple rectification and required adjudication of share allotments, breach of orders, cancellation of share certificates, and rights in shares, which were not shown to fall outside civil jurisdiction on the face of the plaint. Alleged defects in the statement of truth and valuation/court fee likewise did not warrant threshold rejection, and the suit was directed to proceed with interim status quo protection. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:35:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465213 At the Order VII Rule 11 stage, the Court confined itself to the plaint and held that limitation and alleged suppression could not justify rejection because the pleaded dates of knowledge and the effect of pandemic limitation extensions raised disputed factual questions for trial. The civil suit was also not barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, as the reliefs went beyond simple rectification and required adjudication of share allotments, breach of orders, cancellation of share certificates, and rights in shares, which were not shown to fall outside civil jurisdiction on the face of the plaint. Alleged defects in the statement of truth and valuation/court fee likewise did not warrant threshold rejection, and the suit was directed to proceed with interim status quo protection. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465213