Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Afamado Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Wood Based Industrial Estate – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner – original Defendant No. 2 takes exception to an order dated 25th June, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwandi on an application (Exh. 23) in Commercial Suit No. 02/2024, whereby the said application preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’), came to be rejected.
3. The background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under:-
3.1 M/s. Maharashtra Wood Based Industrial Estate (R-1) is a registered partnership firm. Binani Industries Ltd. (R-2) – original Defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Afamado Advisory – the petitioner (original Defendant No. 2), the Respondent No. 1 claims, is a sister company of Binani Industries (D-1). (For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed before the Commercial Court in Suit No. 02/20
Rejection of plaint under O VII R 11 CPC permits fresh suit via R 13; partnership firm acquires cause of action for specific performance if contract rights contributed as capital with firm funds; lim....
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
Fresh suit for specific performance by registered firm after unregistered firm's suit dismissal is barred by Article 54 limitation if beyond three years from 1993 refusal; SLP leaving questions open ....
The rejection of a plaint based on misjoinder of parties and causes of action is erroneous, and disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of....
A suit for specific performance requires a valid written agreement, and claims must be filed within the limitation period; failure to meet these conditions results in dismissal.
Point of Law : Jurisdiction of the court to take action under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC can arise only in case where the pleadings in the plaint are sufficient to disclose the bar to the suit, a....
A suit for specific performance can be maintained by a partner even if not registered, provided the firm is engaged in business dealings.
Suit for specific performance filed after dismissal of suit for injunction is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and deserves to be rejected.
Point of law: principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisd....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
