Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Natarajan, in an order dated December 12, 2025, dismissed a review petition and declined to restore an ad interim injunction passed by a civil court against a company undergoing liquidation. The Bench held that disputes and proceedings that fall within the adjudicatory sphere of the National Company Law Tribunal cannot be entertained by civil courts, and that injunctions granted contrary to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code amount to a patent illegality and are liable to be set aside. The review arose from a claimant’s attempt to pursue reliefs in a civil suit against the corporate debtor and its liquidator without the requisite forum competence under the insolvency framework.

The proceedings arose from a dispute involving Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a company undergoing liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The review petitioner, T. Beena, instituted a civil suit before the Sub Court at Ernakulam seeking reliefs against the corporate debtor, its liquidator, and other parties. In the course of those proceedings, the civil court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Fast-Track UAPA Trials Involving Reverse Burden Of Proof, Monitor 5+ Year Pending Cases

Aggrieved by the grant of injunction, the corporate debtor, represented by its liquidator, along with the liquidator in his individual capacity, approached the High Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, by an earlier order, interfered with the injunction granted by the civil court and set it aside, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of the statutory bar under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, particularly Sections 63 and 231, and that proceedings against a corporate debtor in liquidation were governed by Section 33(5) of the Code.

The present proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in the civil suit seeking review of the High Court’s earlier order. The review petitioner contended that the claim pending before the National Company Law Tribunal was not maintainable under the Code and therefore the bar on civil court jurisdiction would not apply. It was also contended that the liquidator had not obtained prior approval of the adjudicating authority as contemplated under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The respondents opposed the review, contending that any challenge to the maintainability of claims under the insolvency framework must be raised before the appropriate insolvency fora and that the civil suit itself was barred by statute. They further asserted that the High Court’s earlier interference was justified in exercise of its constitutional power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

The Court examined the scope of review in respect of an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution and recorded that the petitioner sought reconsideration on the ground of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record. The Court noted the contention that the claim pending before the National Company Law Tribunal did not fall within the ambit of a “claim” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and therefore the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction was inapplicable.

After referring to the statutory framework, the Court reproduced Section 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and observed that “No Civil Court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on which National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction under this Code.”

The Court also extracted Section 231 of the Code and stated that it “explicitly bars entertaining the suit by the Civil Court” in respect of matters where the adjudicating authority or the Board is empowered to pass orders under the Code, and further that “no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any order passed” under the Code.

On the petitioner’s argument that the insolvency claim itself was not maintainable, the Court recorded that “If at all any grievance, the petitioner has to approach the Company Law Appellate Tribunal, but not before the Civil Court.” It observed that once proceedings are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, the civil court’s jurisdiction stands excluded by virtue of Sections 63 and 231 of the Code.

Addressing the contention under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Court extracted the provision and its proviso and noted that “when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor,” except as permitted by law. The Court recorded that it was an admitted fact that the review petitioner herself had not obtained prior permission of the adjudicating authority before instituting the civil suit.

The Court observed that “the very suit itself is not maintainable before the Trial Court, in view of Section 33(5) of the IBC Act, as well as the bar under Section 63 of the IBC Code.” It further stated that granting an injunction in such circumstances “constitutes a patent illegality” since it ignores the express statutory bar.

The Court recorded that such an illegality justified interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and observed that “this Court gets jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where this Court has been vested with the superintendent power over the court below.” It further stated that “even without any petition filed by the respondent, the Court can interfere with the impugned order.”

On this reasoning, the Court observed that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the grounds urged did not warrant exercise of the review jurisdiction.

The Court recorded that, in view of Sections 33(5) and 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, “the very suit itself is not maintainable before the Trial Court” and that any injunction granted in such circumstances amounts to “a patent illegality.”

Also Read: Review Plea Not Maintainable Against Order Refusing To Appoint Arbitrator Under Section 11 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Kerala High Court

The Court stated that interference with the subordinate court’s injunction order was within the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, noting: “This Court gets jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where this court has been vested with the superintendent power over the court below.”

“Therefore, even without any petition filed by the respondent, the court can interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, if the permission is not obtained, that itself is not a ground for reviewing the order of this Court. Hence, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner, the order to be reviewed, is not sustainable and therefore it is liable to be rejected.”

“Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Review Petitioner: Sri. S. Shyam, Advocate; Sri. T.K. Vipindas, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. D. Reetha, Advocate; Sri. Sherry Samuel Oommen, Advocate; Shri. Naveen D. Palakal, Advocate; Sri. Sukumar Nainan Oommen, Advocate; Smt. Aswathi Menon C., Advocate; Sri. P.A. Mohammed Aslam, Advocate; Sri. P.V. Vinod (Bengalam), Advocate; Shri. Akhil K.M., Advocate; Smt. Anjali Nair, Advocate

Case Title: T. Beena v. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:96165
Case Number: R.P. No. 990 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan