https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794032 Pleadings alleging that property was acquired from HUF nucleus and seeking residue sale proceeds after auction were not treated as liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, because the plaint disclosed a substantive dispute and the averments were not shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The relief for residue amount was also not treated as a direct challenge to the bank's enforcement action, and the dispute over entitlement to the residue and the HUF character of the property was not shown to be one the DRT or DRAT was empowered to decide. The cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on facts. en-us Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794032 Pleadings alleging that property was acquired from HUF nucleus and seeking residue sale proceeds after auction were not treated as liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, because the plaint disclosed a substantive dispute and the averments were not shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The relief for residue amount was also not treated as a direct challenge to the bank's enforcement action, and the dispute over entitlement to the residue and the HUF character of the property was not shown to be one the DRT or DRAT was empowered to decide. The cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794032