TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC dismissed the suit for damages due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, which mandates a two-month prior notice before suing a public officer; absence of such notice rendered the suit barred and non-maintainable. However, the suit was not barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain claims for damages is wider than the limited scope of the SARFAESI Tribunal. The pendency of winding-up proceedings under the 1956 Act did not oust the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff's authorized representative lacked authority regarding the company plaintiff, this did not warrant partial rejection of the plaint since other plaintiffs were represented. The court declined to consider new grounds related to the CIRP and resolution plan not raised below. The order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 CPC was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
