Epic Creations Inc. and Tangible Play Inc., two companies involved in a dispute over ownership and control of certain domains and business assets, have approached the Supreme Court challenging a June 1, 2026 judgment of Justice Easwaran S. of the Kerala High Court.

 In that judgment, the High Court removed Claudia Z. Springer, the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, from a commercial suit pending before the Commercial Court in Ernakulam.

High Court’s Findings:

The High Court found that the assets involved in the dispute had already been dealt with in the Delaware bankruptcy proceedings. It also noted that the Voizzit entities had participated in those proceedings. On that basis, the Court observed:

“That be so, it will be a farcical exercise, if the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam, is allowed to proceed with the suit in order to find whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for a declaratory relief especially since the subject matter of the suit itself has got eroded by operation of the orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction outside the territory of India.”

Background of the Dispute:

The dispute began with a suit filed by Voizzit Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Voizzit Information Technology LLC. In the suit,  they sought declarations that they owned and controlled certain domains and businesses linked to  Epic Creations Inc. and Tangible Play Inc. They also sought  related injunctive reliefs.

Before the High Court, Springer argued that the disputed assets had already been sold under orders of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. She further contended  that the companies’ operations had thereafter  been taken over by the purchasers.

What the High Court Ordered:

Accepting this contention, the High Court recorded that there had been suppression of material facts. It also observed that the plaint appeared to be a “clever piece of drafting”  aimed at creating the impression that a cause of action existed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kochi Commercial Court.

However, the High Court did not dismiss the commercial suit. Instead, it set aside the Commercial Court’s order, removed Springer from the list  of parties to the case, and left it open to BYJU’S resolution professional to raise objections before the Commercial Court regarding the maintainability of the suit. 

The matter has not yet been listed before the Supreme Court.

Case details: VOIZZIT TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. vs. CLAUDIA Z. SPRINGER AND ORS. Diary No. - 37048/2026