Karyan Global LLP Vs Vivek Kumar Mishra And Ors (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that where controversy is anchored in company’s affairs and issue is one which NCLT/NCLAT is empowered to determine the matter in question, section 430 of Companies Act bars parallel civil suits and compels recourse to NCLAT/NCLAT.
Facts- The present revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi in CS No. 3503/24. Application filed by the petitioner (Defendant No.1) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was dismissed by the impugned order.
Conclusion-In every case, where the controversy is anchored in the company’s affairs and the issue is one which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine the matter in question, Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 bars parallel civil suits and compels recourse to the NCLT and, in appeal, to the NCLAT, strengthening the case for regaling such disputes to the NCLT.
Even if the case of the plaintiffs is taken at the highest, the doctrine of judicial comity emphasises mutual respect and deference among courts to avoid conflicting decisions and to promote judicial harmony and may be invoked in challenges under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC (rejection of plaint as “barred by any law” due to statutory ouster or parallel proceedings). While comity is discretionary and often overlaps with statutory bars, it serves as an underlying principle to interpret these provisions, particularly in cases of concurrent jurisdiction or multiplicity of proceedings.
