Territorial Jurisdiction under IBC is Determined by the Corporate Debtor’s Registered Office, not the Place of Credit Availment

The petitioner was a personal guarantor for credit facilities obtained by the 3rd respondent (Corporate Debtor) from the 1st respondent bank

The bank initiated insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi, citing the 3rd respondent’s registered office in New Delhi

The NCLT Delhi, via an impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Ext.P13), permitted the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings against the petitioner

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court of Kerala, arguing that since the credit facility was obtained in Kerala, a part of the cause of action arose within the state

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable before the High Court of Kerala under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India when the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is located in Delhi based on the registered office of the Corporate Debtor.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which governs the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts based on the "cause of action"

Section 60(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates that the Adjudicating Authority for corporate debtors and their personal guarantors shall be the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located

The court examined the petitioner’s contention that the location where the credit facility was originally obtained (Kerala) constituted a "part of the cause of action" under Article 226(2)

the specific proceedings being challenged were instituted under the IBC, which contains a specialized jurisdictional mandate under Section 60(1)

Since the 3rd respondent's registered office was in New Delhi, the NCLT Delhi was the competent Adjudicating Authority

The court held that for the purpose of challenging an order issued under the IBC framework, the mere fact that a loan was disbursed in Kerala does not create a cause of action sufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court

The petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek alternative remedies in the appropriate forum