A Civil Court cannot entertain suits regarding matters under the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal as per IBC sections 63 and 231.

Judgment

(Dated: 12^th December, 2025)

This review petition is filed by the petitioner/1^st respondent in O.P.(C) No.800 of 2025, for review of the Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by this court.

2. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent herein filed O.P.(C) No.800 of 2025, challenging the order passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S. No.41 of 2025, for having granted an ad interim injunction against the respondents herein. The same was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein by filing O.P.(C) No.800 of 2025 along with respondent No.2, who is the liquidator of the respondent No.1, the company, and the same was allowed by this court and set aside the order of granting temporary injunction vide impugned order dated 10.06.2025. The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.(C) No.800 of 2025, and the plaintiff in the original suit filed this review petition, contending that there is an error on the face of the record, that the very claim petition made by the respondent before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’) is not maintainable. Therefore, considering Section 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘IBC’ Code), holding that the suit is barred by law under Section 231 of IBC is not sustainable, as the very claim petition before the NCLT is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to file suit against the respondent company and the liquidator.

3. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even as per Section 33(5) of the IBC Code, for filing the petition or a suit, the prior permission of the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) is required. Therefore, without obtaining permission of the NCLT, the respondent filed the original petition before this court, which is not maintainable. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order deserves to be reviewed and allow the parties to approach the civil court for arguing on the maintainability of the suit, and till then, the interim order granted by the Sub Court shall be continued, hence prayed for allowing the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent liquidator objects to the petition, contending that if the money claim made by the parties before the NCLT, is not maintainable, they have to take their contention before the NCLT, but not before the Civil Court. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable; there is a bar under Section 231 of the Code. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the prior permission was not required to be obtained for filing the petition by the liquidator, as the very petition filed by the respondent was under section 227 of the Constitution of India, where it invoked the superintendence power of the High Court, the Court can interfere even without filing any petition before the Court. Such being the case, the petition filed by the respondent is not a statutory appeal or petition, but it is under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the very review petition is not maintainable, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court in O.P.(C) No. 800 of

2025. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the review petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent, and perused the records.

6. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the judgment passed by this court in O.P.(C) No.800 of 2025 deserves to be reviewed?

(ii) What order?

7. The counsel for the review petitioner has contended that, as per Section 3, sub-Section (6)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, sub-Section 6(a) me