TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 3 (three) entities, namely, Epic Creations, Inc., Neuron Fuel, Inc., and Tangible Play Inc. (collectively Epic and Neuron - U.S. Debtor Companies); which were U.S. Debtor Companies. The petitioner is not in the individual capacity, but solely in the capacity as Chapter-11 Trustee of the U.S. Debtor Companies. The petitioner is a Principal in the Philadelphia Office of Novo Advisors, a restructuring-focused consulting firm, and prior there to the petitioner practiced bankruptcy law for more than 40 years, including as a partner at Reed Smith LLP and Duane Morris LLP. The petitioner has been appointed as a Chapter-11 Trustee for the U.S. Debtor Companies by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, (Delaware Bankruptcy Court U.S.) by order dated 07.10.2024. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent company, namely Voizzit Technology Private Limited, (Voizzit India), is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, in India. The 2nd respondent is Voizzit Information Technology LLC (Voizzit UAE) and together with Voizzit India - (Voizzit Entities) is a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates, the sist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ization in accordance with the Bankruptcy Law of the United States. Respondents 1 and 2 initiated a commercial suit with the sole intention of disrupting the bankruptcy process of the U.S. Companies in the breadth contempt of the orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The managing director of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Rajendran, has not only participated in the proceedings before Delaware Bankruptcy Court and acted in violation of the orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The petitioner further contended that a commercial suit ought not to be permitted to continue since the same is a clear abuse of the process of the court and puts the learned Commercial Court against the U.S. Courts. The Commercial suit essentially requires the Commercial Court to sit in the appeal over the orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, which stands contrary to the principles of the 1st respondent's Committee. Respondents 1 and 2, i.e., plaintiffs, are restrained from further contempt of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court orders continuing to proceed with the Commercial Suit and by using the judicial forum of a Commercial Court, pursuant to its contempt of the U.S. Court. Hence, the petitioner approach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducational content to their users in a prepaid manner by way of subscriptions. On the strength of the Promotion Cum Sale Agreement between 1st plaintiff and the defendant, the user can avail services through the domains of Amazon Play, Google Play, and Apple Stores. The 2nd defendant has listed the products and websites with the terms stipulated by the service providers, and the plaintiff was denied access to the Stripe account with account ID and has been transferred to [email protected]. 9. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the subsequent conduct of the service providers has rendered the entire activity of the Voizzit information technology, as well as the 1st plaintiff, to a stand still. The 1st plaintiff, through the 2nd plaintiff, on an enquiry had identified the stripe account ownership, held in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, is now illegally transferred to the name of Jagrell. The above said name is nothing but a Mail ID provided by Nova Advisor. The stripe account number held by the 2nd plaintiff has no connection with the Nova Advisor. The plaintiff has not assented to any such transfer through any more. The plaintiff had purchased rates held by Ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any LLC, which moved Bankruptcy Court in U.S., and appointed the trustee, was not having the requisite percentage of voting from the creditors as contemplated in the Bankruptcy Court. The 2nd plaintiff had raised the contention that the Trustee, who was appointed, claimed to be representative of the majority of creditors. The majority of creditors of the 1st defendant have not concurred in the actions initiated by the 2nd defendant. 12. It is further contended that the attempt of the 2nd defendant is to procure an order and interfere in the business and to sell the intellectual properties and website to the rival companies at a nominal rate. The 2nd plaintiff had approached the legal forums and obtained the directions and judicial definitions to that effect. The 2nd plaintiff is the legal owner of Epic Creations and Tangible Play, which are operating websites www.getapick.com and www.playosmo.com. Both websites are being operated by paying the requisite fee and other incidental charges payable through Stripe. The security and other precaution measures are handled by the Operating Software Management Infrastructure named Cloudflare and the domain management is held by IT company na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oducts of the first defendant. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff approached this court and this court stayed the sale proclamation and directed the Commercial Court to dispose of the IA within a time bound. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and got set aside the order of this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed this court to give an apportionment to the petitioner to hear and dispose of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before this court. The earlier original petition has been disposed of by this court by giving direction, and in view of setting aside the order, the respondent plaintiff withdrew the said petition as it became infructuous, as the petitioner had already sold the property or goods. 16. The counsel for the petitioner is seriously contented that the petitioner is the Trustee of three U.S. based companies appointed by U.S. Insolvency Court/ Delaware, and the plaintiffs have filed the suit here, indirectly staying the order of the NCLT Court at Delaware. The plaintiff is also a party in the NCL Proceedings at Kochi. Such being the case, the respondent cannot maintain the suit against the petitioner, and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court cannot go into the controversy of admitted and disputed facts. Therefore, the very petition is not maintainable; hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 19. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that arises for consideration is: i) Whether the petitioners made out a case for quashing the plaint in C.S. No.118 of 2024 filed by the respondent in the Commercial Court? 20. On a personal of the records, and hearing the counsel for the parties, which reveals that the petitioner was the 2nd defendant in the suit and he is the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court at Delaware, U.S., for the estates of three entities, namely i) Epic Creations, Inc., ii) Neuron Fuel Inc., and iii) Tangible Play, Inc., which were U..S Debtor Companies, and the 2nd defendant trying to sell the products of the 1st defendant company, where there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant company. Therefore, the plaintiff found, the products of the 1st defendant were illegally sold by the 2nd defendant under the guise of a Trustee of three Debtor Companies as per the Bankruptcy Court U.S. But to establish the right of the plaintiff in the suit, he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m within the bounds of their authority but it was not the case of the 1st respondent that the order passed by the Munsif Court was without any jurisdiction or was so exercised exceeding its jurisdiction. If a suit is not maintainable it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint." 24. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [CS (Commercial) 1136/18], wherein the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC., while executing the foreign judgment. 25. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 2 SCC 253) in the case of Alcon Electronics Private Limited v. Celem S.A. of AFOs 3432 O. Roujan, France and another, wherein the order of the apex court has held that, even the foreign judgment can be executed in India, simply they producing. In another case reported in (Manu/ SC /No. 0559, 2003), in the case of Suryadev Rai v. Ramachandra Rai and others, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held th....