https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91381 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 ..... en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2025 06:10:45 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 06:10:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91381 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 ..... Highlights IBC Fri, 08 Aug 2025 06:10:45 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91381