&w=3840&q=100)
NCLAT rejects Byju's plea on Aakash shareholding status quo directive
A two-member Bench of the appellate tribunal, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and technical member Jatindranath Swain, said the NCLT's order was a 'consensual' and 'interlocutory' direction, and did not warrant appellate intervention at this stage.
'Since the impugned order takes the shape of an interlocutory order, which is not deciding any of the rights of the parties, coupled with the fact that the order takes the shape of a consenting order, no interference is called for,' the Bench noted.
Aakash shareholding row linked to equity raising
The dispute stems from equity fundraising plans by AESL, in which TLPL holds a 25 per cent stake. TLPL's RP moved the NCLAT after the NCLT's Chennai Bench passed an interim order on March 27 directing the maintenance of status quo in the company's shareholding structure.
A challenge to this order by AESL led to a Karnataka High Court judgment on April 8, which set aside the NCLT's interim directive and remanded the case for fresh hearing. At the NCLT's subsequent hearing on April 30, TLPL's counsel Abhinav Vasisht argued that the company's stake was being diluted despite the previous directive and raised concerns over hypothecation of AESL assets and alterations to the Articles of Association that protected TLPL's interests. Also Read:
Due to the complexity of the submissions and the court's approaching summer break, the NCLT passed a consent order maintaining the current shareholding pattern until TLPL's application for interim relief could be fully heard.
Challenging this consent order, TLPL's RP approached the NCLAT. However, the appellate tribunal ruled that the directive was non-final and did not infringe upon substantive rights. 'Thus, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 68 / 2025 lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed,' the order stated.
The development is the latest in a series of legal entanglements involving Byju's. The Supreme Court has admitted the pleas but stayed the NCLT proceedings against them, directing parties to maintain status quo for two weeks pending further hearings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
17 hours ago
- Economic Times
IBC amendment seeks to end legal confusion and discretionary power
ANI IBC Amendment Bill 2025, has provisions for faster and efficient resolution of insolvency cases New Delhi: Various Supreme Court judgments in recent years have played their part in influencing the amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proposed last week, as the government seeks to remove any legal ambiguity from the extant legislation, experts said. As per the proposed amendment, only the proof of default would be enough to admit an insolvency case. This would curb the discretionary power of the adjudicating authority in delving into other issues while deciding whether to admit a case. In the Vidarbha Industries Power versus Axis Bank case in 2022, the apex court had stated that section 7 of the IBC provides discretionary power to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to accept or reject an insolvency application, and that it can also consider relevant issues other than just default while doing so. The IBC amendment was introduced in the Lok Sabha last week and referred to a select committee. Anoop Rawat, national practice head (insolvency and restructuring practice) at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, said, "By clarifying that only default is required for admission into insolvency under section 7, prescribing timelines for the NCLT for admission of insolvency and approval of resolution plans, clarifying the definition of security interest (in aftermath of SC judgment in Rainbow Papers), and laying down the procedure for settlement proposals under Section 12A (in light of the SC judgment in Byju's), the amendment bill intends to remove ambiguities marring the IBC today." In the state tax officer versus Rainbow Papers case in 2023, the Supreme Court relied on the Gujarat VAT Act and held that the state tax department was a secured creditor. Experts had then said it was against the IBC intent and sought clarity on the status of government latest amendment clarified that government dues come lower in the priority order under the IBC's waterfall mechanism than those of secured secured creditor status will be recognised only if there are commercial agreements between the parties to this effect, it the latest amendment made it clear that once an insolvency case is admitted, the case can't be withdrawn by parties until the constitution of the committee of creditors (CoC). This is in sync with the Supreme Court verdict in a case involving Byju's parent Think and Learn and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
IBC amendment seeks to end legal confusion and discretionary power
New Delhi: Various Supreme Court judgments in recent years have played their part in influencing the amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proposed last week, as the government seeks to remove any legal ambiguity from the extant legislation, experts said. As per the proposed amendment, only the proof of default would be enough to admit an insolvency case. This would curb the discretionary power of the adjudicating authority in delving into other issues while deciding whether to admit a case. In the Vidarbha Industries Power versus Axis Bank case in 2022, the apex court had stated that section 7 of the IBC provides discretionary power to the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ) to accept or reject an insolvency application, and that it can also consider relevant issues other than just default while doing so. The IBC amendment was introduced in the Lok Sabha last week and referred to a select committee. Anoop Rawat, national practice head (insolvency and restructuring practice) at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas , said, "By clarifying that only default is required for admission into insolvency under section 7, prescribing timelines for the NCLT for admission of insolvency and approval of resolution plans, clarifying the definition of security interest (in aftermath of SC judgment in Rainbow Papers), and laying down the procedure for settlement proposals under Section 12A (in light of the SC judgment in Byju's), the amendment bill intends to remove ambiguities marring the IBC today." In the state tax officer versus Rainbow Papers case in 2023, the Supreme Court relied on the Gujarat VAT Act and held that the state tax department was a secured creditor . Experts had then said it was against the IBC intent and sought clarity on the status of government dues. The latest amendment clarified that government dues come lower in the priority order under the IBC's waterfall mechanism than those of secured creditors. The secured creditor status will be recognised only if there are commercial agreements between the parties to this effect, it clarified. Similarly, the latest amendment made it clear that once an insolvency case is admitted, the case can't be withdrawn by parties until the constitution of the committee of creditors (CoC). This is in sync with the Supreme Court verdict in a case involving Byju's parent Think and Learn and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Ericsson misusing insolvency code for coercion and debt recovery, RCom tells NCLT
The insolvent Reliance Communications (RCom) has alleged that Swedish Telecom company Ericsson has been using India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 as a tool for coercion and debt recovery, and to seek 'preference' in repayments over other creditors. Gaurav Joshi, senior counsel appearing for RCom, argued before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),'IBC is not to be used as a tool for coercion and debt recovery by individual creditors. [This is] exactly what Ericsson was doing – improperly using IBC to include insolvency as a substitute for debt enforcement or attempting to obtain preferential payments by coercing the debtor using insolvency proceedings.' A bench led by Justices Prabhat Kumar and Sushil M Kochey of the Mumbai NCLT was hearing RCom's petition seeking a refund of ₹ 550 crore of dues paid to Ericsson plus interest. At the heart of the matter is a condition imposed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in its order of 2018, which said the amount paid under the settlement could be refunded if RCom's insolvency appeals were dismissed. Ericsson had later challenged this condition before the Supreme Court, but the Swedish company withdrew its petition, Joshi told the bench. 'You cannot take the benefit of an order and then not comply with it,' Joshi argued, pointing out that Ericsson had accepted the conditional settlement and given undertakings, but later attempted to challenge the very conditions. 'Having withdrawn the petition, they cannot now agitate this issue before NCLT. Their understanding was clear—they would have to bring back the money if the appeals failed.' After a thorough hearing, the bench posted the matter for 18 September. Senior advocates PS Modi and Anil Kher represented Ericsson. At an earlier hearing, senior advocate Anil Kher, representing Ericsson, maintained that the demand for a refund was an 'abuse of process', stressing that the Supreme Court had directed the settlement under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the apex court to pass orders to secure complete justice. In September 2017, Ericsson initiated insolvency proceedings against RCom and its subsidiaries Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom over unpaid dues exceeding ₹ 1,500 crore. The NCLT admitted Ericsson's plea in May 2018. Rcom, along with certain financial creditors under the joint lenders' forum, then approached the NCLAT, seeking a stay on the insolvency proceedings on the grounds that they could hamper the firm's recovery. On 30 May 2018, the NCLAT halted the insolvency proceedings until 30 September 2018 to allow RCom to pay Ericsson ₹ 550 crore (of the ₹ 1,150 crore due) and settle the matter. However, it imposed a condition. If insolvency proceedings against RCom were dismissed, Ericsson would have to refund the money. In 2019, a bench led by Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya vacated the stay and send the matter back to NCLT, directing lenders to restart insolvency proceedings against the bankrupt firm. Joshi argued, 'The 2018 NCLAT order had explicitly recorded the payment ( ₹ 550 crore) as 'subject to the outcome of appeals', and mandated that Ericsson would refund the amount if the appeals were dismissed. This was not an unconditional payment; it was akin to securing Ericsson's dues pending the appeal. With the appeals dismissed and insolvency revived, the money must revert to the debtor." Joshi added that in the Byju's insolvency case, the Supreme Court of India had clarified that once insolvency proceedings were admitted, they became 'in rem' proceedings, impacting all stakeholders and requiring a structured process for any withdrawal or settlement, not just a private agreement between the initial parties.
