The petitioners, including Vysali Pharmaceuticals Limited (represented by its liquidator) and another liquidator, filed an original petition challenging an ad interim injunction granted by the Sub Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.NO.41/2025. The injunction was against the petitioners and other respondents on a suit filed by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent filed a suit before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking a permanent injunction.
The Sub Court, Ernakulam, granted an ad interim injunction against the petitioners in I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.NO.41/2025.
Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the company before the NCLT, and a liquidation order was passed in CP(IB)/29/KOB/2022.
The 1st respondent filed a suit against the company and the liquidator, suppressing the ongoing NCLT proceedings.
The petitioners argued that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 63 and Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, 2016, and Section 231 of IBC.
The respondents argued that the petitioners had remedies under Order 39 Rule 4 and Order 43 CPC.
…Sign in to view the parties.
The judgmen…
Ad interim injunction…
The petitioners, including Vysali Pharmaceuticals Limited (represented by its liquidator) and another liquidator, filed an original petition challenging an ad interim injunction granted by the Sub Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.NO.41/2025. The injunction was against the petitioners and other respondents on a suit filed by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent filed a suit before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking a permanent injunction.
The Sub Court, Ernakulam, granted an ad interim injunction against the petitioners in I.A.No.3/2025 in O.S.NO.41/2025.
Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the company before the NCLT, and a liquidation order was passed in CP(IB)/29/KOB/2022.
The 1st respondent filed a suit against the company and the liquidator, suppressing the ongoing NCLT proceedings.
The petitioners argued that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to Section 63 and Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, 2016, and Section 231 of IBC.
The respondents argued that the petitioners had remedies under Order 39 Rule 4 and Order 43 CPC.
…The judgmen…
Ad interim injunction…