Plaint scrutiny in damages suits turns on plaint averments, while insolvency or winding up alone does not oust civil jurisdiction.

A plaint-rejection challenge is assessed on the plaint averments and the principal relief claimed, and a civil court's jurisdiction is excluded only by a clear statutory bar. Want of notice under Section 80 CPC was treated as a formal defect that barred the suit unless cured, but it did not destroy the cause of action and a fresh suit could follow. The suit was not barred by SARFAESI Section 34, winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, or an unapproved insolvency resolution plan, because the claim was for damages against third parties and the insolvency moratorium applied to suits against the corporate debtor. Authority defects in verification did not justify partial rejection of the plaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (iii) Whether the pendency of winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 ousted the civil court's jurisdiction; (iv) Whether the plaint could be rejected on the ground that the person verifying the plaint lacked authority to represent the company in liquidation; and (v) Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process and the unapproved resolution plan barred the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The Official Liquidator fell within the definition of a public officer, and no prior notice under Section 80 was shown to have been served or leave obtained under Section 80(2). Want of notice under Section 80 constituted a formal defect, but such defect did not destroy the cause of action or bar a fresh suit where Order VII Rule 13 applied.

Conclusion: The suit was barred for non-compliance with Section 80, but the defect was curable and did not prevent a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The plaint was required to be examined on its own averments, and no measure under Section 13(4) was pleaded in the plaint. The principal relief was damages and compensation for alleged negligence in preservation of property, which lay outside the limited jurisdiction conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. The consequential injunction prayer could not independently determine maintainability, and the plaint could not be split for partial rejection.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Issue (iii): Whether the pendency of winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 ousted the civil court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The scheme of Sections 446, 448(6)(c), 460 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not create an exclusive bar against a civil suit for damages. The provisions governing the liquidator's acts, misfeasance proceedings, and company court control were held to be enabling and not exclusionary. By contrast, the express jurisdictional bar in Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 underscored the absence of any comparable total bar under the 1956 Act.

Conclusion: The winding up proceedings did not bar the civil suit.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaint could be rejected on the ground that the person verifying the plaint lacked authority to represent the company in liquidation.

Analysis: Even if the signatory could not validly represent the company in liquidation, that circumstance could not justify partial rejection of the plaint. The plaint had to stand or fall as a whole, and the plaintiffs in their capacity as guarantors remained entitled to have their claim adjudicated.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected on this ground.

Issue (v): Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process and the unapproved resolution plan barred the suit.

Analysis: The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to suits against the corporate debtor, not to a claim by guarantors for damages against third parties. The resolution plan had not been approved under Section 31 and therefore had no binding effect. The appellate court also declined to entertain this new ground for the first time in appeal within the confines of an Order VII Rule 11 challenge.

Conclusion: The corporate insolvency resolution process did not bar the suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that all grounds of rejection of the plaint except the defect under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were set aside, and the appellants were left free to institute a fresh suit after curing that defect.

Ratio Decidendi: In an application for rejection of plaint, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and the principal relief, a civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded unless a statute clearly creates such a bar, and the mere pendency of winding up or insolvency proceedings under the relevant regime does not by itself oust a damages action against third parties.

---