Byju's Insolvency: Kerala High Court Strikes Off Voizzit Suit Over US Assets

The Kerala High Court on Thursday struck off a suit by Voizzit entities claiming rights over assets of BYJU'S US subsidiaries, holding that the proceedings were barred by the insolvency moratorium against BYJU'S parent Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd.

Justice Easwaran S. passed the order on a petition filed by Claudia Z. Springer, the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in bankruptcy proceedings concerning BYJU'S US subsidiaries, including Epic Creations Inc. and Tangible Play Inc.

Springer sought striking off the commercial suit pending before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, contending that the subject matter of the dispute was already before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, where the assets in question had been sold pursuant to orders dated February 25, 2025.

She also argued that the Voizzit entities had actively participated in the U.S. proceedings and that allowing them to continue parallel litigation in India would amount to an abuse of process.

Accepting the contention, the High Court noted that the declaratory relief sought in the suit concerned assets that were no longer available, having already been sold by orders of the U.S. court.

“That being so, it will be a farcical exercise for the Commercial Court to proceed with the suit and find whether the respondents are entitled to a declaratory relief, especially since the subject matter of the suit itself has gone by operation of judicial orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction outside the territory of India,” the Court observed.

The Court also held that the suit itself was barred because Think & Learn had already been admitted into insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru, which appointed a resolution professional on July 16, 2024 and imposed a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Since the commercial suit was instituted on November 20, 2024, after the moratorium came into force, the Court held that its institution itself was impermissible.

“Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC 2016 prohibits institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor during the pendency of the insolvency proceeding,” the Court noted.

Holding that the suit was “ex facie barred,” the Court said Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code empowers courts to reject plaints where the suit appears barred by law.

The Court accordingly allowed the petition, set aside the Commercial Court's order refusing to reject the suit, and struck off the commercial suit pending before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam.

However, it clarified that the Voizzit entities would remain free to pursue any claims against Think & Learn through the insolvency resolution process before the resolution professional.

For Petitioner: Advocate Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy

For Respondents: Advocates K. Anand, R.K Jayalakshmi, Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthik Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S, Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar and Rohan Mathew