JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner/2 nd defendant, praying the court to dismiss the Commercial Suit bearing No. C.S.118 of 2024, pending on the files of the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, or directing the trial court to dismiss the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, pending on the files of the Commercial Court, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is duly appointed Chapter-11 trustee of the bankruptcy estates of 3 (three) entities, namely, Epic Creations, Inc., Neuron Fuel, Inc., and Tangible Play Inc. (collectively Epic and Neuron - U.S. Debtor Companies); which were U.S. Debtor Companies. The petitioner is not in the individual capacity, but solely in the capacity as Chapter-11 Trustee of the U.S. Debtor Companies. The petitioner is a Principal in the Philadelphia Office of Novo Advisors, a restructuring-focused consulting firm, and prior there to the petitioner practiced bankruptcy law for more than 40 years, including as a partner at Reed Smith LLP and Duane Morris LLP. The petitioner has been appointed as a Chapter-11 Trustee for the U.S. Debtor Companies by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, (Delaware Bankruptcy Court U.S.) by order dated 07.10.2024. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the 1 st respondent company, namely Voizzit Technology Private Limited, (Voizzit India), is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 , in India. The 2 nd respondent is Voizzit Information Technology LLC (Voizzit UAE) and together with Voizzit India – (Voizzit Entities) is a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates, the sister concern of Voizzit India, and both respondents wanted to file the suit against the 1 st defendant and show the present petitioner as 2 nd defendant before a Commercial Court and also against respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Rajendran Vellapalath is the founder, owner, and managing director of Voizzit Entities. 5. The 3 rd respondent, Think And Learn Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Bankruptcy Code). Think And Learn is being impleaded through its Resolution Professional, Mr. Shailendra Ajmera. 5. The 3 rd respondent, Think And Learn Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Bankruptcy Code). Think And Learn is being impleaded through its Resolution Professional, Mr. Shailendra Ajmera. The 4 th respondent i.e. Google India Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in India. The 4 th respondent does not have any contracts or provide any services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. The 5 th respondent/Amazon India Private Limited, named as Amazon India, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act in India, and does not have any contracts with or provide any services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. The 6 th respondent/Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in India, and does not have any contracts with or provide any services to the U.S Debtor Companies. The 7 th respondent i.e., Stripe India Private Limited, is also incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and does not have any contracts or provide services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. The 8 th respondent, Apple India Private Limited, also incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in India, does not provide any contracts or services to the U.S. Debtor Companies. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 to 8 have no contacts with U.S. Debtor Companies and provide any services; they are only formal and pro forma parties impeded in the suit by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is also not seeking any relief against respondents Nos.3 to 8, and is only seeking a remedy against respondents Nos.1 and 2. The further case of the petitioner is that the 2 nd defendant appointed as a Chapter-11 Trustee of U.S. Debtor Companies, is required to operate, manage, supervise all aspects of the business of the entities, and oversee their reorganization in accordance with the Bankruptcy Law of the United States. Respondents 1 and 2 initiated a commercial suit with the sole intention of disrupting the bankruptcy process of the U.S. Companies in the breadth contempt of the orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. Respondents 1 and 2 initiated a commercial suit with the sole intention of disrupting the bankruptcy process of the U.S. Companies in the breadth contempt of the orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The managing director of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Rajendran, has not only participated in the proceedings before Delaware Bankruptcy Court and acted in violation of the orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The petitioner further contended that a commercial suit ought not to be permitted to continue since the same is a clear abuse of the process of the court and puts the learned Commercial Court against the U.S. Courts. The Commercial suit essentially requires the Commercial Court to sit in the appeal over the orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, which stands contrary to the principles of the 1 st respondent’s Committee. Respondents 1 and 2, i.e., plaintiffs, are restrained from further contempt of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court orders continuing to proceed with the Commercial Suit and by using the judicial forum of a Commercial Court, pursuant to its contempt of the U.S. Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court for dismissing the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs. 7. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that, once the U.S. Court has already passed the order, appointing the petitioner as Trustee of the Three Debtor Companies, the MD of the plaintiff’s company had already participated in the proceedings in U.S., and filed replies. But, suppressing the same, he has filed the suit in the Commercial Court, nothing but a violation of the U.S. Court order. The petitioner has nothing to do with the first defendant company. There is no relationship between defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the dispute between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant. Therefore, adding the petitioner as 2 nd defendant in the suit is not correct, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the court should invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the plaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Therefore, the court should invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the plaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has seriously objected the petition, mainly on the ground that the 1 st defendant company is the authorized person to sell the products of the three above said U.S. companies and the 2 nd defendant trying to sell the product of the 1 st defendant company without the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff’s company. The 1 st defendant is a Private Limited Company, and the 2 nd defendant is a Trustee of Epic Creations was appointed as per Chapter-11 Trustee of Epic Creations, Tangible play, and without legitimate authority over the assets and operations, which are validly owned by the plaintiff. The 3 rd defendant is the Cloud Service Application Platform, which is used by Epic Creations and Tangible Play for online education purposes. The 4 th defendant is the agent for selling the platforms, which are used by Epic Creations and Tangible Play for online education purposes. The other defendants are also providing services to Epic Creations and Tangible play. The 2 nd plaintiff had acquired rights held by Sri.Raju Ravindran, who in turn had acquired rights by way of a recovery class in a loan agreement entered into between Think And Learn Private Limited/the 1 st defendant company. The Epic Creations and Tangible Play are two online education platforms providing tutorials and other educational content to their users in a prepaid manner by way of subscriptions. On the strength of the Promotion Cum Sale Agreement between 1 st plaintiff and the defendant, the user can avail services through the domains of Amazon Play, Google Play, and Apple Stores. The 2 nd defendant has listed the products and websites with the terms stipulated by the service providers, and the plaintiff was denied access to the Stripe account with account ID and has been transferred to IGRALLA@.advisors.com. 9. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the subsequent conduct of the service providers has rendered the entire activity of the Voizzit information technology, as well as the 1 st plaintiff, to a stand still. 9. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the subsequent conduct of the service providers has rendered the entire activity of the Voizzit information technology, as well as the 1 st plaintiff, to a stand still. The 1 st plaintiff, through the 2 nd plaintiff, on an enquiry had identified the stripe account ownership, held in the name of the 2 nd plaintiff, is now illegally transferred to the name of Jagrell. The above said name is nothing but a Mail ID provided by Nova Advisor. The stripe account number held by the 2 nd plaintiff has no connection with the Nova Advisor. The plaintiff has not assented to any such transfer through any more. The plaintiff had purchased rates held by Riju Raveendran in Think and Learn Private Limited by way of a deed/loan agreement dated 04.09.2023. The agreement has having default clause, the creditor has having right of conversion, executable by issuance of a written notice. Invoking the legal mandate, the 2 nd plaintiff had acquired legitimate ownership of two portals promoting education and knowledge through mobile applications and other software held by the 1 st defendant and three companies also domain portfolio was held by the 2 nd plaintiff. Subsequently, on 01.08.2024, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 entered into a sale agreement and jointly enjoyed the benefits of the sale of software and the user fee had been collected. At this juncture, access to the plaintiff’s portfolio registered with the service providers like Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and cloud services were ended abruptly without any notice. The application providers are the platforms held by Apple Play Store, Google Play Store, Amazon Apps Store till 25.10.2024. The applications and products of the 2 nd plaintiff marketed by the 1 st plaintiff were available and accessible to the users of the domains. The plaintiff, on an enquiry understood that on 29.10.2024, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in U.S. appointed the 2 nd defendant as Trustee for the U.S. subsidiaries under Chapter-11 of the United States Bankruptcy Court. Based on the above, the 2 nd defendant applied for authorization to enter into a debtors in possession/credit agreement for the purpose of availing a credit facility from a financing company to run other operations. 10. Based on the above, the 2 nd defendant applied for authorization to enter into a debtors in possession/credit agreement for the purpose of availing a credit facility from a financing company to run other operations. 10. It is further contended that the Delaware Bankruptcy Court has considered the application, which was filed by GLAS Trust Company LLC, claiming to be the creditor of a company registered in Delaware named Byju’s Alpha Inc. The above company is claimed to be creditor to the first defendant by way of an agreement dated 09.11.2021, and the application was opposed by the 2 nd plaintiff, raising contention that Epic Creations Inc. and Tangible Play Inc. are registered with the Territorial Jurisdiction of India. The 2 nd plaintiff has acquired the rights by virtue of the loan agreement. The predecessor in interest of the plaintiff has an exclusive right; moreover, the 2 nd defendant has no legal right or right to claim authorization to enter the credit agreement. 11. The GLAS Trust Company LLC, which moved Bankruptcy Court in U.S., and appointed the trustee, was not having the requisite percentage of voting from the creditors as contemplated in the Bankruptcy Court. The 2 nd plaintiff had raised the contention that the Trustee, who was appointed, claimed to be representative of the majority of creditors. The majority of creditors of the 1 st defendant have not concurred in the actions initiated by the 2 nd defendant. 12. It is further contended that the attempt of the 2 nd defendant is to procure an order and interfere in the business and to sell the intellectual properties and website to the rival companies at a nominal rate. The 2 nd plaintiff had approached the legal forums and obtained the directions and judicial definitions to that effect. The 2 nd plaintiff is the legal owner of Epic Creations and Tangible Play, which are operating websites www.getapick.com and www.playosmo.com. Both websites are being operated by paying the requisite fee and other incidental charges payable through Stripe. The security and other precaution measures are handled by the Operating Software Management Infrastructure named Cloudflare and the domain management is held by IT company named ‘Godaddi’. Both websites are being operated by paying the requisite fee and other incidental charges payable through Stripe. The security and other precaution measures are handled by the Operating Software Management Infrastructure named Cloudflare and the domain management is held by IT company named ‘Godaddi’. The 2 nd defendant had issued communications claiming to be the owner of the site, the Epic Creations functions through the website www.playosmo.com, and the interference of the 2 nd defendant has caused a complete shutdown of the above site and denied access to the payment processing interface. This has directly affected the business of the plaintiff, and also more than 50,000 educational institutions have lost their access to the materials and the subjects uploaded through the above website. The resources and materials, especially the study materials developed by more than 3,00,000 teachers across the world, are being uploaded. The login is password-protected for each individual user ID. The academic careers of millions of students are also now in dilemma since access to the website is being interfered with by the 2 nd defendant. However, the actions of the 2 nd defendant caused the entire business of the plaintiff to a standstill. The letter issued has caused an abrupt and end users of the domain, website, and other incidental services issued by the service provider that defendant Nos.3 to 5, resulting in loss, equivalent to billions of rupees. Hence, the plaintiffs are under bankruptcy. The plaintiff is a registered legal entity having a registered office at Ernakulam. 13. The 1 st plaintiff acquired by the illegal, arbitrated denial of access to the domain and website www.getepick.com and www.playosmo.com. Most of the employees and working capital of the 1 st plaintiff are situated within Ernakulam. The plaintiff has lost their access to the domains legitimately owned by them and is now required to get a declaration and a consequential leave of mandatory and prohibitory injunction from the court. 14. The transactions between the plaintiff and defendants are exclusive, commercially in nature, and documents produced along with the plaint produce some documents/contents filed in the suit seeking various reliefs along with the mandatory injunction, suit for declaration to declare that the 2 nd plaintiff has observed right over the Epic Creations Inc and Tangible Play Inc, but not limited to the domains or website www.getepic.com and www.playosmo.com and also mandatory injunction. 15. 15. The respondent also filed an application for granting injunction against the petitioner for staying the 2 nd defendant/petitioner in the proceeding to sell the products of the first defendant. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff approached this court and this court stayed the sale proclamation and directed the Commercial Court to dispose of the IA within a time bound. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and got set aside the order of this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court directed this court to give an apportionment to the petitioner to hear and dispose of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before this court. The earlier original petition has been disposed of by this court by giving direction, and in view of setting aside the order, the respondent plaintiff withdrew the said petition as it became infructuous, as the petitioner had already sold the property or goods. 16. The counsel for the petitioner is seriously contented that the petitioner is the Trustee of three U.S. based companies appointed by U.S. Insolvency Court/ Delaware, and the plaintiffs have filed the suit here, indirectly staying the order of the NCLT Court at Delaware. The plaintiff is also a party in the NCL Proceedings at Kochi. Such being the case, the respondent cannot maintain the suit against the petitioner, and the petitioner/2 nd defendant is not a necessary party to the proceedings of the suit. The Delaware Court passed an order on 12.11.2024, where the MD of the plaintiff appeared and obtained time from the U.S. Court, but by suppressing the fact, filed the suit at Ernakulam. Therefore, the suit at Ernakulam is not maintainable against the petitioner. 17. The plaintiff, though, undertook to contest the matter before the U.S. Court, but he has violated the order of the U.S. Court. A contempt petition/contempt proceedings against the plaintiff have been initiated. By suppressing the same, the suit is filed by the plaintiff in Cochin, which is not maintainable. Therefore, the suit against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner cannot exercise the right under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit is barred by foreign law, but not Indian law. Therefore, he has no other option but to approach the High Court for quashing the plaint against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner cannot exercise the right under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit is barred by foreign law, but not Indian law. Therefore, he has no other option but to approach the High Court for quashing the plaint against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashing the plaint against the petitioner. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent objected to the petition, contending that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the first defendant, where there is a commercial agreement between them in respect of the orders of the 1 st defendant, where the 2 nd defendant is trying to alienate the orders of the 1 st defendant. Therefore, they are constrained to file the suit against the defendants. The other defendants are service providers to the U.S. Companies. Though the Bankruptcy Court in U.S. has been appointed, the 2 nd defendant as a trustee, he is not a Trustee of the 1 st defendant, but the plaintiff has the right over the 1 st defendant’s products. There is no other option for them to file the suit to establish their rights. But, if the products are sold and they are not given access to the website, the plaintiff will be put into hardship and loss. It is also contended that 2 nd defendant has already filed a written statement disputing the fact, and the Commercial Court is required to frame the issues and lead the evidence. Therefore, at this stage, the court cannot quash the plaint. Learned counsel also contended that the plaintiff cannot invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the plaint. The High Court cannot go into the controversy of admitted and disputed facts. Therefore, the very petition is not maintainable; hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 19. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that arises for consideration is: i) Whether the petitioners made out a case for quashing the plaint in C.S. No.118 of 2024 filed by the respondent in the Commercial Court? 20. Therefore, the very petition is not maintainable; hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 19. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the point that arises for consideration is: i) Whether the petitioners made out a case for quashing the plaint in C.S. No.118 of 2024 filed by the respondent in the Commercial Court? 20. On a personal of the records, and hearing the counsel for the parties, which reveals that the petitioner was the 2 nd defendant in the suit and he is the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court at Delaware, U.S., for the estates of three entities, namely i) Epic Creations, Inc., ii) Neuron Fuel Inc., and iii) Tangible Play, Inc., which were U..S Debtor Companies, and the 2 nd defendant trying to sell the products of the 1 st defendant company, where there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant company. Therefore, the plaintiff found, the products of the 1 st defendant were illegally sold by the 2 nd defendant under the guise of a Trustee of three Debtor Companies as per the Bankruptcy Court U.S. But to establish the right of the plaintiff in the suit, he has approached the Commercial Court by filing the suit for a declaration. If the petitioner, 2 nd defendant, is allowed to sell the products, the plaintiff will not be able to have access to the website wwwgetepic.com and www.playosmo.com. 21. Further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is also a party to the NCLT proceedings at Kochi, where the insolvency proceedings are pending. There is no contact between the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant, but under the guise of the order of the U.S. Court, the 2 nd defendant tried to alienate the products of the 1 st defendant, where the plaintiff has having right over the said property; therefore, they filed the suit. Whereas the contention of the 2 nd defendant/petitioner herein is that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not service providers to the above-mentioned 3 U.S. companies. Insolvency proceedings were initiated before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, U.S., where the petitioner was appointed as a Trustee of the properties of the three Companies, and there is no contract between the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant, and he is not a necessary party to the suit. Insolvency proceedings were initiated before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, U.S., where the petitioner was appointed as a Trustee of the properties of the three Companies, and there is no contract between the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant, and he is not a necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff indirectly obtained a stay from this court for alienating the properties or products as the U.S. Court permitted him to sale of the products. He also contended that the 2 nd plaintiff violated the order of the U.S. Court, and a contempt notice was also issued against him. Therefore, the petitioner prayed quashing of the very suit filed against him. 22. On the other hand, the respondents’ Counsel seriously objected that the High Court cannot call the suit, where disputed facts are to be tried by the trial Court/ Commercial Court. In support of the case, the Respondent/plaintiff counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in [ (2014) 6 SCC 508 ] ( Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and others ). 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment held as under : “ 15 . A petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India can neither be entertained to decide the landlord-tenant dispute nor is it maintainable against a private individual to determine an intense dispute including the question whether one party is harassing the other party. The High Court under Article 227 has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them within the bounds of their authority but it was not the case of the 1st respondent that the order passed by the Munsif Court was without any jurisdiction or was so exercised exceeding its jurisdiction. If a suit is not maintainable it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.” 24. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [CS (Commercial) 1136/18] , wherein the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC., while executing the foreign judgment. 25. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [CS (Commercial) 1136/18] , wherein the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC., while executing the foreign judgment. 25. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 2 SCC 253 ) in the case of Alcon Electronics Private Limited v. Celem S.A. of AFOs 3432 O. Roujan, France and another , wherein the order of the apex court has held that, even the foreign judgment can be executed in India, simply they producing. In another case reported in (Manu/ SC/No. 0559, 2003) , in the case of Suryadev Rai v. Ramachandra Rai and others , where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an efficacious remedy available under the law, the High Court cannot entertain this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , for issuing any order of writ of certiorari to the subordinate court. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit, and he is only a Trustee of the 3 foreign companies which are under the proceedings of the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, U.S. Therefore, there is no connection between the petitioner and the 1 st defendant company and the plaintiffs. Whereas, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the 1 st defendant in respect of using the products of the first defendant. It is stated that, to invoke the abrupt stopping of the website by the 2 nd defendant by shutting down the website, thereby, the access for payment of processing interface has directly affected the business of the plaintiff, and there were more than 50,000 education institutions have lost their access to the materials and subject uploaded through the website. It is also contented that resources and materials, especially the study materials developed by more than 3,00,000 teachers across the world, are being uploaded. But in view of the sudden stopping of access to the website, the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. Such being the case, the plaintiff was required to file the suit to establish his right over the products in the Commercial Court. But in view of the sudden stopping of access to the website, the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. Such being the case, the plaintiff was required to file the suit to establish his right over the products in the Commercial Court. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner is not a necessary party; he can approach the Commercial Court for filing the necessary application for maintaining the suit against the petitioner, for framing of a preliminary issue. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a written statement in the Commercial Court, and an interlocutory application is also pending before the Commercial Court. Therefore, this Court cannot give any findings on the merits of the case, as it will affect the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court. Therefore, if at all the petitioner wants any relief, he has to approach the trial Court/Commercial Court, for raising the issues regarding maintainability and filing application under Order 10 Rule 2 of CPC for striking out the 2 nd defendant, if he is not a necessary and proper party to the suit. Therefore, this court cannot exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the plaint against the petitioner/2 nd defendant herein. Though this court disposed of the earlier petition directing the Commercial Court to dispose of the I.A. within time bounds, by the time the process of sale was stayed, but subsequently the Hon’ble Apex set aside the order of this court, and the earlier original petition filed by the plaintiff has been withdrawn. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner for quashing the plaint cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner/2 nd defendant is hereby dismissed.