TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndran, Smt. Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Smt. Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Smt. Aparnna S., Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Rohan Mathew and R.K. Jayalakshmi, Advs. JUDGMENT The 2nd defendant who is a Chapter 11 Trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in a bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the subsidiary companies of the 1st defendant incorporated in the United States has come up with this original petition seeking to strike off C.S. No. 118 of 2024 from the files of the Commercial Court - III, Ernakulam. 2. C.S. No. 118 of 2024 instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrict of Delaware, and the two Companies i.e. 'Epic Creations INC' and 'Tangible Play INC' qua the reliefs which have been sought for is the subject matter of the bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. According to the petitioner there were other reasons which prompted her to move the High Court directly which warranted interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court by Order dated 15.09.2025 disposed of the petition for special leave permitting the petitioner to move an application under Order X Rule 2 or Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Court. In tune with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kruptcy Court for the District of Delaware also indicate that respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs, had actively participated in the proceedings. 6. In order to test the sustainability of the order impugned, this court must decide two questions; (i) Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed with C.S. No. 118 of 2024 as against the petitioner/2nd defendant, especially in the light of the proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware? and (ii) Since the 1st defendant is already under insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru, in CP (IB) No. 149/BB/2023 and that an order appointing an Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional is passed on 16.07.2024, whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame has been sold by orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 20.05.2025. That be so, it will be a farcical exercise, if the Commercial Court - III, Ernakulam, is allowed to proceed with the suit in order to find whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for a declaratory relief especially since the subject matter of the suit itself has got eroded by operation of the orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction outside the territory of India. That be so, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by permitting respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the present suit would only be an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Court below however h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and others v. D. A. Srinivas [2026 SCC online 831] observed as follows; "Any suppression of a material fact, which has the effect of creating an illusory cause of action and eclipsing the legal bar, ought to be dealt with firmly, and the plaint would be liable to be summarily rejected. It is also settled law that a person who has suppressed a material fact is not entitled to any relief. Suppression of a material fact within the knowledge of the party amounts to fraud upon the Court. The relevancy or otherwise of a fact is to be decided by the Court, and parties cannot contend that they omitted a material fact on the assumption that it was not relevant. It is not only the duty of the Court to summarily reject the claim of a party su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Court Kochi. Therefore, this court is inclined to hold that the plaint in CS No 118/2024 fails to disclose any cause of action against the 2nd defendant and is filed suppressing material facts. 15. Alternatively, it is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable since it is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, since the 1st defendant is already under insolvency proceedings before the NCLT Bengaluru. However, this court finds that the petitioner has not raised this contention in her application before the Subordinate Court and the same is raised for the first time before this Court. 16. Further question is whether this Court should consider the said issue in this original petition. The suit is seen filed on 20-11-202....