RAJESH BINDAL
HDFC Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gee Kay International – Respondent
Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - Defendant No. 1 is before this court challenging the order dated 21.5.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by it under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement dated 6.11.2007 between the parties is null and void and is a result of fraud, forgery and consequential relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the petitioner from realising the amount/benefit under the alleged non-existent agreement. The suit was filed in January, 2009. It is in the aforesaid suit that application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned court below. The order has been impugned before this court.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was primarily under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Firstly, the suit is barred by law and secondly, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Sectio
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors.
Bishundeo Narain & Anr. v. Seogeni Rai & Jagernath
I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors.
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation
Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya v. Dr. Raj Kishore Tripathi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.