https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95003 HC, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, set aside the trial court's order refusing rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It held that the suit, challenging alleged forged and ante-dated shareholders' agreements, board resolutions and share transfer documents, is barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the core issues are already agitated in a pending company petition before NCLT, which is competent to examine allegations of forgery and fraud integral to company affairs. To avoid multiplicity and conflicting findings, the plaint was rejected as not maintainable; other objections were left open. en-us Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95003 HC, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, set aside the trial court's order refusing rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It held that the suit, challenging alleged forged and ante-dated shareholders' agreements, board resolutions and share transfer documents, is barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the core issues are already agitated in a pending company petition before NCLT, which is competent to examine allegations of forgery and fraud integral to company affairs. To avoid multiplicity and conflicting findings, the plaint was rejected as not maintainable; other objections were left open. Highlights Companies Law Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95003