Legal Analysis: MARG Limited vs. Sushil Limited & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 402
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: The judgment is delivered by the Bench collectively (signed by both)
Date of Decision: April 21, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (MARG Limited) entered into a composite commercial arrangement with the respondents for the sale of a property. The transaction involved execution of sale deeds for part consideration (₹32.50 crores paid to a bank) and a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) providing for an additional ₹53 crores contingent upon leasing performance. The MoA was signed by the appellant but not by the respondents. After the sale deeds were executed, the respondents failed to pay the balance. The appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction to enforce the MoA. The trial court rejected the respondents’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court reversed, holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was undervalued. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed a triable issue as to whether the MoA formed part of a binding composite arrangement. The Court also held that deficiency in court fees is a curable defect; the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to correct valuation before rejection under Order VII Rule 11(b) or (c).

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title MARG Limited vs. Sushil Limited & Ors. Civil Appeal No. Not specified (arising from SLP) Bench Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe Date of Decision April 21, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC (Unreported – not assigned in extract) Appeal From Order dated 28.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (as inferred) in revision against trial court’s order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint – grounds: (a) no cause of action, (b) undervalued relief, (c) insufficient stamp paper, (d) barred by law, etc.), Order VII Rule 13 (rejection does not preclude fresh plaint).

• Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 2(h) (contract), 10 (consideration), 14 (free consent), 25 (agreement without consideration), principles of concluded contract and enforceability of oral agreements.

• Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (as amended): Section 27(c) (valuation for injunction suits).

Precedents Cited:

• T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 – Courts must nip vexatious suits in bud; if clever drafting creates illusion of cause of action, examine under Order X.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.