[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Claudia Z. Springer vs Voizzit Technology Private Limited on 23 July, 2025
1
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CS NO.118 OF 2024
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT /
COMMERCIAL COURT, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/2nd DEFENDANT:
CLAUDIA Z. SPRINGER, AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,
NOVO ADVISERS CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS, 401 N,
FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 4, EAST CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, PIN - 60654
BY ADV SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1, 3-7:
1 VOIZZIT TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,
(CIN U72900KL2020PTC061966) 48/1391, 1C,
PLUMFLOWER, MATHER CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,
OPPOSITE GOLD SOUK, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, INDIA,
PIN-682 019, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
RAJENDRAN VELLAPALATH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
VELLAPPALATH HOUSE, KANNIPARAMBA P.O., MAVOOR VIA,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, (REGISTERED ADDRESS IS DOOR NO 25/14,
OHM NIVAS, KT GOPALAN ROAD, KOTTOOLI, KUTHIRAVATTOM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, INDIA, 673 016)
2
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
2 VOIZZIT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LLC,
(COMMERCIAL LICENSE NO. 1047170) OFFICE NO.732,
BUSINESS VILLAGE, B BLOCK DEIRA, DUBAI, UAE,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJENDRAN VELLAPALATH,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VELLAPPALATH HOUSE,
KANNIPARAMBA P.O., MAVOOR VIA, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673 661
3 THINK & LEARN PRIVATE LIMITED,
IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK, 2ND FLOOR, TOWER D, 4/1,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(INCORRECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE COMMERCIAL SUIT VOIZZIT
TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD V. THINK AND LEARN PVT LTD C.S. 118/2024
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT NO. 3 IS CURRENTLY
UNDERGOING THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 AND
IS BEING IMPLEADED THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL -
MR SHAILENDRA AJMERA), PIN - 560 029
4 GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
3RD FLOOR, PRESTIGE SIGMA, NO. 3, VITTALMALLYA ROAD,
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
(REGISTERED ADDRESS IS NO. 3, RMZ INFINITY - TOWER E,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH & 5TH FLOORS, BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA, INDIA), PIN - 560 016
5 AMAZON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS INDIA HEAD, HAVING OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR,
BRIDGE GATE WAY 26/1, BRIDGE WARD TRADE CENTER,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR (THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.5 HAS BEEN CORRECTED ON
10 APRIL 2025 TO 'AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED' IN
THE COMMERCIAL SUIT VOIZZIT TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD V. THINK AND
LEARN PVT LTD C.S. 118/2024 BY WAY OF I.A. NO.7 OF 2025),
PIN - 560 055
3
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
6 MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
807, NEW DELHI HOUSE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR (REGISTERED ADDRESS IS T-10 AND T-11, 3RD FLOOR,
MALIK BUILDCON PLAZA 1, PLOT NO.2, POCKET 6, SECTOR 12,
DWARKA, N.S.I.T. DWARKA, SOUTH WEST DELHI,
NEW DELHI, INDIA), PIN - 110 078
7 STRIPE PAYMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
UNIT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR, TOWER 1, ONE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,
SENAPATHI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 013
MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(INCORRECTLY NAMED IN THE COMMERCIAL SUIT VOIZZIT TECHNOLOGY
PVT LTD V. THINK AND LEARN PVT LTD C.S. 118/2024 AS STRIPE
PAYMENT INDIA PVT. LIMITED, THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.7
IS 'STRIPE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED' AND THE REGISTERED ADDRESS
IS PRESTIGE TECH PACIFIC PARK, 11TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 2,
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR, HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST
TALUK, PANATHUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, INDIA), PIN - 560 103
8 APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
19TH FLOOR, CONCORDE TOWER C, UB CITY, NO.24 MUNICIPAL NO.6,
CUBBON ROAD, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH,
KARNATAKA, INDIA, 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, (REGISTERED ADDRESS IS 13TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE MINSK
SQUARE, MUNICIPAL NO.6, CUBBON ROAD, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE NORTH, KARNATAKA, INDIA)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
SHRI.ABIN BENNY
SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID
SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 3.7.2025, THE COURT ON
23.07.2025, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 23rd July, 2025)
This petition is filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant, pray-
ing the court to dismiss the Commercial Suit bearing No.
C.S.118 of 2024, pending on the files of the Commercial
Court, Ernakulam, or directing the trial court to dismiss the suit
filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, pending on the files of the
Commercial Court, Ernakulam.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is
5
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
duly appointed Chapter-11 trustee of the bankruptcy estates 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 Compa-
nies. The petitioner is not in the individual capacity, but solely
in the capacity as Chapter-11 Trustee of the U.S. Debtor Com-
panies. 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,
6
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
(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 sister
concern of Voizzit India, and both respondents wanted to file
the suit against the 1st defendant and show the present
petitioner as 2nd defendant before a Commercial Court and also
against respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Rajendran Vellapalath is the
founder, owner, and managing director of Voizzit Entities.
7
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
5. The 3rd respondent, Think And Learn Private
Limited, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, currently undergoing the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process under the provisions of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Bankruptcy Code).
Think And Learn is being impleaded through its Resolution
Professional, Mr. Shailendra Ajmera. The 4th respondent i.e.,
Google India Private Limited, is a company incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in India. The
4th respondent does not have any contracts or provide any
services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. The 5th
respondent/Amazon India Private Limited, named as Amazon
India, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the
8
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
Companies Act in India, and does not have any contracts with
or provide any services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. The 6th
respondent/Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, is a
company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956, in India, and does not have any contracts with or
provide any services to the U.S Debtor Companies. The 7th re-
spondent i.e., Stripe India Private Limited, is also incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act and does not have
any contracts or provide services to the U.S. Debtor
Companies. The 8th respondent, Apple India Private Limited,
also incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956, in India, does not provide any contracts or services to
the U.S. Debtor Companies.
9
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
6. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent
Nos.4 to 8 have no contacts with U.S. Debtor Companies and
provide any services; they are only formal and pro forma
parties impeded in the suit by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The
petitioner is also not seeking any relief against respondents
Nos.3 to 8, and is only seeking a remedy against respondents
Nos.1 and 2. The further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd
defendant appointed as a Chapter-11 Trustee of U.S. Debtor
Companies, is required to operate, manage, supervise all
aspects of the business of the entities, and oversee their
reorganization 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
10
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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
11
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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 con-
tempt of the U.S. Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this
Court for dismissing the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 /
plaintiffs.
7. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that,
once the U.S. Court has already passed the order, appointing
the petitioner as Trustee of the Three Debtor Companies, the
MD of the plaintiff’s company had already participated in the
proceedings in U.S., and filed replies. But, suppressing the
same, he has filed the suit in the Commercial Court, nothing
but a violation of the U.S. Court order. The petitioner has
12
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
nothing to do with the first defendant company. There is no
relationship between defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the
dispute between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. Therefore,
adding the petitioner as 2nd defendant in the suit is not correct,
which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the
court should invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to quash the plaint. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
seriously objected the petition, mainly on the ground that the
1st defendant company is the authorized person to sell the
13
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
products of the three above said U.S. companies and the 2nd
defendant trying to sell the product of the 1st defendant
company without the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff’s
company. The 1st defendant is a Private Limited Company, and
the 2nd defendant is a Trustee of Epic Creations was appointed
as per Chapter-11 Trustee of Epic Creations, Tangible play, and
without legitimate authority over the assets and operations,
which are validly owned by the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant is
the Cloud Service Application Platform, which is used by Epic
Creations and Tangible Play for online education purposes.
The 4th defendant is the agent for selling the platforms, which
are used by Epic Creations and Tangible Play for online
education purposes. The other defendants are also providing
14
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
services to Epic Creations and Tangible play. The 2nd plaintiff
had acquired rights held by Sri.Raju Ravindran, who in turn
had acquired rights by way of a recovery class in a loan
agreement entered into between Think And Learn Private
Limited/the 1st defendant company. The Epic Creations and
Tangible Play are two online education platforms providing
tutorials and other educational 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
15
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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
16
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
rates held by Riju Raveendran in Think and Learn Private Lim-
ited by way of a deed /loan agreement dated 04.09.2023. The
agreement has having default clause, the creditor has having
right of conversion, executable by issuance of a written notice.
Invoking the legal mandate, the 2nd plaintiff had acquired
legitimate ownership of two portals promoting education and
knowledge through mobile applications and other software
held by the 1st defendant and three companies also domain
portfolio was held by the 2nd plaintiff. Subsequently, on
01.08.2024, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 entered into a sale
agreement and jointly enjoyed the benefits of the sale of
software and the user fee had been collected. At this juncture,
access to the plaintiff’s portfolio registered with the service
17
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
providers like Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Services,
Microsoft Azure, and cloud services were ended abruptly
without any notice. The application providers are the platforms
held by Apple Play Store, Google Play Store, Amazon Apps
Store till 25.10.2024. The applications and products of the 2nd
plaintiff marketed by the 1st plaintiff were available and
accessible to the users of the domains. The plaintiff, on an
enquiry understood that on 29.10.2024, the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court in U.S. appointed the 2nd defendant as
Trustee for the U.S. subsidiaries under Chapter-11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Court. Based on the above, the 2nd
defendant applied for authorization to enter into a debtors in
possession/credit agreement for the purpose of availing a
18
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
credit facility from a financing company to run other
operations.
10. It is further contended that the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court has considered the application, which was filed by
GLAS Trust Company LLC, claiming to be the creditor of a
company registered in Delaware named Byju’s Alpha Inc. The
above company is claimed to be creditor to the first defendant
by way of an agreement dated 09.11.2021, and the application
was opposed by the 2nd plaintiff, raising contention that Epic
Creations Inc. and Tangible Play Inc. are registered with the
Territorial Jurisdiction of India. The 2nd plaintiff has acquired
the rights by virtue of the loan agreement. The predecessor in
interest of the plaintiff has an exclusive right; moreover, the
19
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
2nd defendant has no legal right or right to claim authorization
to enter the credit agreement.
11. The GLAS Trust Company 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
20
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
companies at a nominal rate. The 2nd plaintiff had approached
the legal forums and obtained the directions and judicial defi-
nitions 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 named
‘Godaddi’. The 2nd defendant had issued communications
claiming to be the owner of the site, the Epic Creations
functions through the website www.playosmo.com, and the
21
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
interference of the 2nd defendant has caused a complete
shutdown of the above site and denied access to the payment
processing interface. This has directly affected the business of
the plaintiff, and also more than 50,000 educational institu-
tions have lost their access to the materials and the subjects
uploaded through the above website. The resources and
materials, especially the study materials developed by more
than 3,00,000 teachers across the world, are being uploaded.
The login is password-protected for each individual user ID.
The academic careers of millions of students are also now in
dilemma since access to the website is being interfered with by
the 2nd defendant. However, the actions of the 2nd defendant
caused the entire business of the plaintiff to a standstill. The
22
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
letter issued has caused an abrupt and end users of the domain,
website, and other incidental services issued by the service
provider that defendant Nos.3 to 5, resulting in loss, equivalent
to billions of rupees. Hence, the plaintiffs are under bank-
ruptcy. The plaintiff is a registered legal entity having a
registered office at Ernakulam.
13. The 1st plaintiff acquired by the illegal, arbitrated
denial of access to the domain and website – www.gete-
pick.com and www.playosmo.com. Most of the employees and
working capital of the 1st plaintiff are situated within Ernaku-
lam. The plaintiff has lost their access to the domains
legitimately owned by them and is now required to get a
declaration and a consequential leave of mandatory and
23
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
prohibitory injunction from the court.
14. The transactions between the plaintiff and defend-
ants are exclusive, commercially in nature, and documents
produced along with the plaint produce some documents/
contents filed in the suit seeking various reliefs along with the
mandatory injunction, suit for declaration to declare that the
2nd plaintiff has observed right over the Epic Creations Inc and
Tangible Play Inc, but not limited to the domains or website
www.getepic.com and www.playosmo.com and also
mandatory injunction.
15. The respondent also filed an application for granting
injunction against the petitioner for staying the 2nd
defendant/petitioner in the proceeding to sell the products of
24
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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.
25
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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 petitioner/2nd defendant is not a necessary party to the
proceedings of the suit. The Delaware Court passed an order
on 12.11.2024, where the MD of the plaintiff appeared and
obtained time from the U.S. Court, but by suppressing the fact,
filed the suit at Ernakulam. Therefore, the suit at Ernakulam is
not maintainable against the petitioner.
26
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
17. The plaintiff, though, undertook to contest the
matter before the U.S. Court, but he has violated the order of
the U.S. Court. A contempt petition/contempt proceedings
against the plaintiff have been initiated. By suppressing the
same, the suit is filed by the plaintiff in Cochin, which is not
maintainable. Therefore, the suit against the petitioner is liable
to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended that the petitioner cannot exercise the right under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for seeking rejection of the plaint
as the suit is barred by foreign law, but not Indian law.
Therefore, he has no other option but to approach the High
Court for quashing the plaint against the petitioner. Hence,
prayed for quashing the plaint against the petitioner.
27
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
objected to the petition, contending that the plaintiff has filed
the suit against the first defendant, where there is a commercial
agreement between them in respect of the orders of the 1st
defendant, where the 2nd defendant is trying to alienate the or-
ders of the 1st defendant. Therefore, they are constrained to
file the suit against the defendants. The other defendants are
service providers to the U.S. Companies. Though the
Bankruptcy Court in U.S. has been appointed, the 2nd
defendant as a trustee, he is not a Trustee of the 1st defendant,
but the plaintiff has the right over the 1st defendant’s products.
There is no other option for them to file the suit to establish
their rights. But, if the products are sold and they are not given
28
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
access to the website, the plaintiff will be put into hardship and
loss. It is also contended that 2nd defendant has already filed a
written statement disputing the fact, and the Commercial Court
is required to frame the issues and lead the evidence. There-
fore, at this stage, the court cannot quash the plaint. Learned
counsel also contended that the plaintiff cannot invoke the
provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
quashing the plaint. The High 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:
29
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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 be-
tween 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
30
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
of three Debtor Companies as per the Bankruptcy Court U.S.
But to establish the right of the plaintiff in the suit, he has
approached the Commercial Court by filing the suit for a
declaration. If the petitioner, 2nd defendant, is allowed to sell
the products, the plaintiff will not be able to have access to the
website wwwgetepic.com and www.playosmo.com.
21. Further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is also
a party to the NCLT proceedings at Kochi, where the
insolvency proceedings are pending. There is no contact
between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, but under the guise
of the order of the U.S. Court, the 2nd defendant tried to
alienate the products of the 1st defendant, where the plaintiff
has having right over the said property; therefore, they filed
31
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
the suit. Whereas the contention of the 2nd defendant /petitioner
herein is that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not service
providers to the above-mentioned 3 U.S. companies.
Insolvency proceedings were initiated before the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court, U.S., where the petitioner was appointed as
a Trustee of the properties of the three Companies, and there is
no contract between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, and he is
not a necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff
indirectly obtained a stay from this court for alienating the
properties or products as the U.S. Court permitted him to sale
of the products. He also contended that the 2nd plaintiff violated
the order of the U.S. Court, and a contempt notice was also
issued against him. Therefore, the petitioner prayed quashing
32
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
of the very suit filed against him.
22. On the other hand, the respondents’ Counsel
seriously objected that the High Court cannot call the suit,
where disputed facts are to be tried by the trial Court/
Commercial Court. In support of the case, the Respondent
/plaintiff counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in [(2014) 6 SCC 508] (Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and
others).
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the
judgment held as under :
“15. A petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India can neither be entertained to decide the
landlord-tenant dispute nor is it maintainable against a private
individual to determine an intense dispute including the question
whether one party is harassing the other party. The High Court
33
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 20252025:KER:54506
under Article 227 has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordi-
nate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exer-
cise the powers vested in them 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 exer-
cised 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 ques-
tion a plaint.”
24. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judg-
ment 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.
34
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
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 that an efficacious remedy
available under the law, the High Court cannot entertain this
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for
issuing any order of writ of certiorari to the subordinate court.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehe-
mently contended that the petitioner is not a necessary party to
the suit, and he is only a Trustee of the 3 foreign companies
which are under the proceedings of the Bankruptcy Court in
35
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
Delaware, U.S. Therefore, there is no connection between the
petitioner and the 1st defendant company and the plaintiffs.
Whereas, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the 1st
defendant in respect of using the products of the first defend-
ant. It is stated that, to invoke the abrupt stopping of the
website by the 2nd defendant by shutting down the website,
thereby, the access for payment of processing interface has
directly affected the business of the plaintiff, and there were
more than 50,000 education institutions have lost their access
to the materials and subject uploaded through the website. It is
also contented that resources and materials, especially the
study materials developed by more than 3,00,000 teachers
across the world, are being uploaded. But in view of the sudden
36
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
stopping of access to the website, the dispute arose between
the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
Such being the case, the plaintiff was required to file the
suit to establish his right over the products in the Commercial
Court. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner is not a necessary
party; he can approach the Commercial Court for filing the
necessary application for maintaining the suit against the peti-
tioner, for framing of a preliminary issue. It is also submitted
that the petitioner has already filed a written statement in the
Commercial Court, and an interlocutory application is also
pending before the Commercial Court. Therefore, this Court
cannot give any findings on the merits of the case, as it will
affect the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court. Therefore,
37
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
if at all the petitioner wants any relief, he has to approach the
trial Court/Commercial Court, for raising the issues regarding
maintainability and filing application under Order 10 Rule 2 of
CPC for striking out the 2nd defendant, if he is not a necessary
and proper party to the suit. Therefore, this court cannot exer-
cise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for quashing the plaint against the petitioner/2nd defendant
herein. Though this court disposed of the earlier petition
directing the Commercial Court to dispose of the I.A. within
time bounds, by the time the process of sale was stayed, but
subsequently the Hon’ble Apex set aside the order of this court,
and the earlier original petition filed by the plaintiff has been
withdrawn. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of
38
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
the view that the relief sought by the petitioner for quashing
the plaint cannot be granted.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner/2nd
defendant is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
K.NATARAJAN,
JUDGE
SS
39
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7 OCTOBER 2024 OF THE
DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT APPROVING THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS THE CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE FOR EACH OF THE US DEBTOR COMPANIES AND
THE NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 27 FEBRUARY
2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF MR
SANDEEP GUPTAIS
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE SAID 303(F) ORDER DATED 28 JUNE 2024
PASSED BY THE DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16 JULY 2024 OF THE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2 AUGUST 2024 OF THE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23 OCTOBER 2024 PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29 JANUARY 2025 PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE 10 FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE 24 FEBRUARY 2025 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2024 ISSUED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF
STRIPE
Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8 OCTOBER 2024 SENT BY
THE PETITIONER, THROUGH US COUNSEL, TO THE CHIEF
LEGAL OFFICER
Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE STRIPE TRO DATED 9 OCTOBER 2024
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE OF THE STRIPE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DATED 22 OCTOBER 2024
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE STRIPE STIPULATION DATED 24 OCTOBER
2024
40
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DATED 19
NOVEMBER 2024 (GOOGLE TRO)
Exhibit P16 A COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATED 3
DECEMBER 2024
Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE CLOUDFLARE ORDER DATED 20 NOVEMBER
2024
Exhibit P18 A COPY OF THE APPLE ORDER DATED 12 NOVEMBER 2024
Exhibit P19 A COPY OF THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING HELD
BEFORE THE DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON 12
NOVEMBER 2024
Exhibit P20 A COPY OF THE A. LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 4 SEPTEMBER
2023 BETWEEN RIJU RAVEENDRAN AND THINK & LEARN
Exhibit P21 A COPY OF THE B. ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 1 DECEMBER
2023 BETWEEN RIJU RAVEENDRAN AND VOIZZIT UAE
Exhibit P22 A COPY OF THE C. NOTICE DATED 1 APRIL 2024 ISSUED
ON THE LETTERHEAD OF VOIZZIT UAE TO THINK & LEARN
Exhibit P23 A COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE ENTIRE PLAINT
AND THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS SERVED UPON THE
PETITIONER (BELATEDLY SERVED ON 18 JANUARY 2025)
IN RELATION TO THE COMMERCIAL SUIT BEARING CASE
NUMBER 118 OF 2024(COMMERCIAL SUIT)BEFORE THE LD.
COMMERCIAL COURT AT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P24 A TRUE TYPED AND TRANSLATED COPY OF THE ALLEGED
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP DECLARED BY DUBAI COURTS
FILED AS DOCUMENT NO. 3 WITH THE COMMERCIAL SUIT
Exhibit P25 A COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 16 NOVEMBER 2024
MADE BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 BEFORE THE DELAWARE
BANKRUPTCY COURT
Exhibit P26 A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING HELD BEFORE THE
DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON 3 DECEMBER 2024
Exhibit P27 A COPY OF THE VOIZZIT COMPLAINT DATED 10 DECEMBER
2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DELAWARE
BANKRUPTCY COURT
Exhibit P28 A COPY OF THE VOIZZIT TRO DATED 11 DECEMBER 2024
PASSED BY THE DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT
Exhibit P29 A COPY OF THE VOIZZIT INJUNCTION DATED 18 DECEMBER
2024
Exhibit P30 A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 10 JANUARY 2025
41
O.P.(C) NO.1377 OF 2025
2025:KER:54506
Exhibit P31 A COPY OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL AND OTHER RELIEF
Exhibit P32 A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING ON 22
JANUARY 2025 OF THE DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY COURT
Exhibit P33 A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING HELD ON 29
JANUARY 2025
Exhibit P34 A COPY OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER DATED 30 JANUARY 2025
Exhibit P35 A COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 13 FEBRUARY 2025
ADDRESSED BY PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO COUNSEL OF
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 – 3
Exhibit P36 A COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT ORDER DATED 19 FEBRUARY
2025
Exhibit P37 A COPY OF THE SAID EMAILS DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2025
AND 21 FEBRUARY 2025 ADDRESSED BY THE US COUNSEL
OF THE PETITIONER TO THE US COUNSEL OF RESPONDENT
NOS. 1 – 3
Exhibit P38 A COPY OF THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL DATED
5 MARCH 2025
Exhibit P39 A COPY OF THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL DATED
25 NOVEMBER 2024 FILED BY POTTER ANDERSON &CORROON
LLP
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY MOTION BEFORE THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE,
UNITED STATES, DATED 21.05.2025
Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER IN THE
ABOVE OP(C) TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
HOLD THE DEFENDANTS THEREIN IN CONTEMPT, PASSED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE,
UNITED STATES, DATED 21.05.2025
Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPTS DATED NIL OF THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, UNITED STATES
[ad_2]
Source link