Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-08-21 allowed

Sejal Glass Ltd vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd

Bench: 2 — R.F. Nariman

In Brief

A plaintiff sued a company and its directors for recovery of dues and TDS-related reliefs. The trial court rejected the plaint against the directors under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, finding it disclosed no cause of action against them but allowed the suit against the company. The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11—the rule applies only to the plaint as a whole. Where a cause of action is disclosed against some defendants, the suit must proceed against them, even if not against others. Partial striking out requires Order VI Rule 16 with specific grounds. The Court set aside the trial court's judgment and allowed the defendants eight weeks to file their written statement.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Plaint Rejection Demurrer

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login