https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794369 A civil suit instituted before applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were filed could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the basis of the interim moratorium under Section 96, because that bar operates only from the filing of the insolvency application and does not extinguish a suit already pending. Section 231 did not create a blanket ouster of civil court jurisdiction for a pre-existing declaratory claim concerning personal guarantees. The court also held that Order VII Rule 11 does not permit rejection of a plaint in part against only some defendants where the pleading discloses a composite cause of action. The rejection order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794369 A civil suit instituted before applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were filed could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on the basis of the interim moratorium under Section 96, because that bar operates only from the filing of the insolvency application and does not extinguish a suit already pending. Section 231 did not create a blanket ouster of civil court jurisdiction for a pre-existing declaratory claim concerning personal guarantees. The court also held that Order VII Rule 11 does not permit rejection of a plaint in part against only some defendants where the pleading discloses a composite cause of action. The rejection order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794369