Voizzit Technology Pvt Ltd and Anr v. The Director and Ors

What happened

The petitioners, two private limited companies represented by the same managing director, sought writs to direct respondents 1 and 2 to enquire into the alleged malpractices of the interim resolution professional of Think and Learn Private Limited and respondents 4 to 6, and respondent 3, the NIA, to investigate alleged involvement of foreign entities in the manipulation of insolvency processes. Their case was that the petitioners acquired rights to certain overseas companies through a 2023 loan agreement and its assignment, that insolvency was initiated and conducted unfairly, that complaints to the ED and CBI had not been acted on, and that FIR No. 0044/2025 of the High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru should be investigated by the CBI. Respondents 4 to 9 objected to maintainability, pointing out that W.P.(PIL) No. 171/2025 on the same facts and reliefs had been dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench on 13 January 2026 and this petition was filed the next day, 14 January 2026, without leave to file afresh, and that paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit said no earlier petition for the same or similar reliefs had been filed. They also said the petitioners' own averments showed that the Karnataka High Court was the proper court, since the FIR was in Bengaluru and the interim relief sought amounted to a stay of C.P.(IB) No. 149/BB/2023 before the NCLT, Bengaluru.

Questions before the court

• Is the petition maintainable in this Court after the earlier PIL was withdrawn, and is Kerala the proper forum?

Why the court ruled this way

The earlier writ petition, W.P.(PIL) No. 171/2025 (Ext. R4(g)), was filed on the same factual matrix with exactly the same reliefs and was dismissed as withdrawn on the petitioners' own request, with no insistence on liberty to file a fresh petition (paragraph 7). Instituting this petition therefore violated the doctrine of finality in the maxim 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium', as held by the Supreme Court in Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2771 (paragraph 7). The averment in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that no earlier petition had been filed was factually incorrect (paragraph 7). Separately, the petitioners' own statement of facts showed that the FIR was registered by a Bengaluru police station, and the interim relief they sought was in effect a stay of NCLT, Bengaluru proceedings, so the Karnataka High Court was the proper court and they had chosen the wrong forum (paragraph 8). Continuance of the proceedings, being against principles of law, had to be terminated in the interests of justice (paragraph 8).

Controlling point

The respondents' objections to maintainability were well founded.

Order and next steps

The writ petition was dismissed.

Practical implications

A litigant who withdrew an earlier petition should seek leave to file afresh and should disclose it fully in the new affidavit; the forum should be the High Court with territorial connection to the FIR and the tribunal concerned.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not examine the allegations about the conduct of the insolvency or the named parties; the order rests entirely on the manner in which the petition was brought and on the choice of forum.