Civil jurisdiction over guarantees, mortgages and pledges survives despite NCLT debenture redemption remedies; secured assets receive limited interim protection.

Statutory NCLT jurisdiction for debenture redemption does not prima facie exclude civil jurisdiction over composite claims to enforce independent guarantees, mortgages and pledge arrangements unless those reliefs fall within the NCLT's express adjudicatory power. Pre-institution mediation requirements did not bar the suit because participating entities had undergone mediation resulting in a failure report, and urgent protective relief was sought. As default and the unpaid debt were not seriously disputed, dealings with mortgaged properties and pledged securities were restrained without prior written consent; broader interim measures, including asset disclosure, deposit, attachment and receivership, were not justified because existing security was not shown to be inadequate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court's jurisdiction over claims concerning guarantees, mortgages and pledged securities was barred because redemption of debentures could be pursued before the NCLT; (ii) Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with pre-institution mediation requirements; (iii) Whether interim protection beyond restraint over the mortgaged properties and pledged securities was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction over claims concerning guarantees, mortgages and pledged securities was barred because redemption of debentures could be pursued before the NCLT.

Analysis: The statutory exclusion under the Companies Act is confined to matters capable of adjudication by the NCLT and must be strictly construed. Although a debenture trustee may seek redemption of debentures before the NCLT, the defendants did not establish that the NCLT could grant the declaratory reliefs, enforce independent guarantees, redeem mortgages, or determine rights under pledge arrangements sought in the suit.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction is not prima facie barred in respect of the composite civil reliefs claimed.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with pre-institution mediation requirements.

Analysis: The partnership firm impleaded as a defendant comprised entities that participated in the pre-institution mediation, which ended in a failure report before institution of the suit. The application also sought urgent protective relief, and the circumstances disclosed urgency from the plaintiff's standpoint.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply to the suit.

Issue (iii): Whether interim protection beyond restraint over the mortgaged properties and pledged securities was warranted.

Analysis: Default and an unpaid debt were not seriously disputed, while the recall notice supported the claimed amount at the interim stage. The material did not show that the existing mortgages and securities were insufficient to secure the unpaid debt, so broader reliefs such as asset disclosure, deposit, attachment, or receivership were not justified. Persistent default and the possibility that alteration or restructuring of secured assets could defeat the claim justified preservation of the mortgaged properties and pledged securities.

Conclusion: A limited injunction restraining dealings with the mortgaged properties and pledged securities, unless the plaintiff gives prior written consent, is warranted; the remaining interim reliefs are refused.

Final Conclusion: The secured assets remain protected pending trial, while the plaintiff may separately pursue any legally permissible remedy before the NCLT for redemption of debentures.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory remedy before the NCLT for redemption of debentures does not oust civil jurisdiction over independent civil claims for enforcement of guarantees, mortgages and pledges unless those reliefs fall within the NCLT's express jurisdiction.

---