Previously, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed that the parties’ settlement proposal be placed before the newly formed Committee of Creditors (CoC), which includes US‑based Glas Trust, the trustee for Byju’s lenders owed $1.2 billion.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld its earlier order, rejecting appeals by the BCCI and Byju’s co‑founder Riju Raveendran to withdraw insolvency proceedings against Byju’s parent company, Think & Learn. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed both the BCCI’s and Raveendran’s challenges to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) April 17 verdict.
Previously, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed that the parties’ settlement proposal be placed before the newly formed Committee of Creditors (CoC), which includes US‑based Glas Trust, the trustee for Byju’s lenders owed $1.2 billion. The BCCI and Raveendran argued that their application under Section 12A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code was filed before the CoC’s constitution and thus should fall under Regulation 30A(1)(a), allowing withdrawal without CoC approval.
However, NCLAT’s Chennai bench, Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain, found that Form FA (the application to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) was filed on November 14, 2024, after the CoC’s formation, and therefore required the CoC’s 90 per cent voting share approval under Regulation 30A(1)(b). NCLAT accordingly upheld the NCLT’s directions.
The insolvency process against Think & Learn was initiated on July 16, 2024, after the NCLT admitted the BCCI’s ₹158.90 crore claim as an operational creditor. Although a settlement had briefly set aside the proceedings in August 2024, Glas Trust successfully challenged that order, and the Supreme Court reinstated the CIRP in October 2024, directing the BCCI to pursue its settlement through the NCLT.
Raveendran also alleged delays by the Interim Resolution Professional in filing the withdrawal application, but NCLAT dismissed that contention as well.
