The main legal point established is that civil courts do not have jurisdiction over matters within the scope of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as per Sections 63 and 231, and any such suits are barred by law.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - This is an application at the behest of the defendant nos.5 to 8 in the suit. Such defendants seek dismissal of the suit on the ground that the cause of action of the suit is barred under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant nos.5 to 8 submits that, a proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata in respect of the defendant no.9. In such proceedings, the defendant no.5 was appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The defendant no.6 is the insolvency professional entity of which the defendant nos.7 and 8 are the partners. She submits that, in view of the provisions of Sections 63 and 231 of the Code, 2016, the suit is not maintainable. She points out that the plaintiff was never present when the application was taken up for consideration on previous dates. She also points out that, an appeal carried from an order refusing to grant interim relief to the plaintiff was dismissed for default on January 6, 2020.

3. There are nine defendants in the suit. The first two defendants are State Bank of India. The third and fourth defendants are officers of the State Bank of India. The fifth defendant is the Insolvency Resolution Professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal in the insolvency proceedings initiated against the defendant no.9. The sixth defendant is the legal entity to which the fifth defendant belongs. The seventh and eighth defendants are the partners of the sixth defendant.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims to be a director and a shareholder of the defendant no.9. The plaintiff alleges that, the plaintiff obtained credit facilities from the State Bank of India. The plaint contains grievances of the plaintiff against the defendant nos.5 to 8 in their functioning as insolvency professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal. The plaintiff seeks declaration and injunction as also damages. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that, the bank was negligent in protecting the interest of the plaintiff. The negligence of the Bank is in relation to the insolvency proceeding. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that, advertisements issued by the insolvency professional damaged the business opportunities of the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered.

5. As noted above, the defendant no.9 was before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata in respect of an insolvency proceeding initiated against it under Section 7 of the Code, 2016. In such proceeding, the defendant no.5 was appointed as the Insolvency Professional. The Insolvency Professional took steps under the Code of 2016. The plaintiff, again as noted above, claims to be a principal shareholder and the director of the defendant no.9 which was facing the insolvency proceeding. The suit was filed subsequent to the commencement of the insolvency proceeding and after the appointment of the insolvency professional.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant nos.5 to 8 submits that, the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata passed an order for winding up of the defendant no.9 subsequently. The insolvency professional and on the passing of the order of winding up, the Liquidator, did not find any asset of the defendant no.9 excepting a vehicle, which the plaintiff is using.

7. Sections 63 and 231 of the Code of 2016 are as follows:

"63. Civil court not to have jurisdiction

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. Civil court not to have jurisdiction."

"231. Bar of jurisdiction

No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in which the Adjudicating Authority or the Board