2026 Supreme(Ker) 621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J.
Ralph Lilyan – Petitioner
Versus
T.R.Sanu – Respondent
CRP NO. 115 OF 2022
Decided On : 22-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Corporate Law - Jurisdiction and Civil Procedure
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.151
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT : S.4
Headnote
(B) Civil Procedure - Injunctions - Inherent powers of Tribunal - The Tribunal possesses wide powers to grant interim injunctions regarding the conduct of company affairs, exercising authority that effectively mirrors that of a civil court, thereby precluding parallel litigation in civil courts for the same subject matter. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
A lawsuit was initiated in a civil court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain certain individuals from accessing company accounts and records, alleging unauthorized modifications and potential destruction of evidence. Simultaneously, proceedings were pending before a specialized tribunal regarding allegations of oppression and mismanagement within the entity. The civil court originally dismissed the injunction plea, citing lack of jurisdiction, but was reversed by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the specific allegations regarding tampering with accounts and unauthorized access were intrinsically linked to the ongoing claims of mismanagement and oppression. Exercising its interpretative role, the court held that the statutory framework of the act creates a comprehensive mechanism to handle such disputes, including the power to issue injunctions, thus barring the civil court from entertaining the suit.
Issues: The central issue was whether a civil court retains jurisdiction to grant an injunction in matters related to company affairs where a specialized tribunal is already seized of a petition alleging oppression and mismanagement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that because the specialized tribunal is invested with sufficient powers to grant both final and interim relief—including injunctions—and because the act explicitly excludes civil court jurisdiction for matters the tribunal is empowered to decide, any attempt to litigate these issues in a civil court is legally barred.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; Appellate court order set aside; Trial court order restored.
For the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh R. Kormath
For the Respondent: Sri P.G. Jayasankar, Sri.K.C.Harish, Smt.K.R.Monisha
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving nclt proceedings and civil suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding civil court jurisdiction versus nclt authority. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. nclt has exclusive jurisdiction over company oppression and mismanagement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. appellate court error in failing to bar civil suit. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. revision allowed; civil court jurisdiction expressly barred for nclt matters. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
T.R. Ravi, J.
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.1.2022 in CMA No.33 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge-V, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.302 of 2021 before the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from unlawfully accessing the accounts of the 5th defendant and that of the Directors' accounts, maintained in the office of the 5th defendant, from tampering or destroying any accounts kept in the office of the 5th respondent, and for other reliefs. Prior to the filing of the above suit, the 1st respondent herein had filed Company Petition No.23 of 2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench ['NCLT' for short] for initiating action against respondents 2 to 4 in the said petition, for acts of oppression and mismanagement under Section 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, for removal of the above said persons as Directors of the 1st respondent Company, to order recovery of undue gain made by them, to disqualify and debar the said respondents for the fraudulent practice administered by them, etc. Interim reliefs were sought for in the Company Petition to prevent further diversion of funds of the 1st respondent Company and to restrain the Directors from creating any third party rights or mortgaging or alienating immovable assets partly or fully owned, apart from other reliefs.
2. Petitioners 1 to 3 in the revision petition are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit and the 4th petitioner is the 5th defendant in the suit. The 2nd respondent in the revision petition is the 4th defendant in the suit. Along with the suit, the 1st respondent (plaintiff) had filed IA No.2 of 2021, praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from illegally and unauthorisedly accessing the accounts and files of the 5th defendant and making illegal corrections, alterations, modifications or changes or committing any acts of waste in the accounts, files and books of the 5th defendant Company, etc. The trial court by order dated 2.7.2021 dismissed the application finding that the issue raised is one which the National Company Law Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate, as it comes within the purview of mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that a conjoint reading of , 242 and 430 of the Companies Act would make it clear that such matters are to be dealt with by the NCLT and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts would be barred. The 1st respondent challenged the order in CMA No.33 of 2021 before the District Court and by the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2022, the order of the trial Court has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. The District Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought for in the petition.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasoning contained in paragraph 16 of the appellate order are erroneous. The Appellate Court has stated that from Ext.A1 petition, it is seen that the relief sought for in the petition before the NCLT was to initiate action against respondents 2 to 4 therein for acts of oppression and mismanagement, and in the injunction application the 1st respondent has not complained of any oppression or mismanagement of the Company. It is further stated in the order that (i) the 1st respondent never agitated that any provision of the Companies Act was prejudicial to the members or oppressive in nature