Latest news with #CorporateInsolvencyResolutionProcess
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court admits Byju's insolvency appeals
Bengaluru: The Supreme Court has admitted two appeals in the ongoing insolvency proceedings of Think & Learn, the parent entity of the embattled edtech firm Byju's, filed by the company's promoters and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The apex court has scheduled the next hearing for July 21 where it will consider interim reliefs sought by the petitioners. The cases stem from the insolvency application filed by the BCCI, which alleged unpaid dues from Byju's, a former Team India sponsor. However, both BCCI and Byju's claimed that a Rs 158 crore settlement was reached and fully executed before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The promoters are seeking withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on this pre-CoC agreement. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Byju's promoters, argued that the BCCI settlement was "fully agreed upon, paid, and formally communicated to the interim resolution professional well before the CoC was constituted." Supporting the plea, senior counsel Guru Krishna Kumar told the court that the company's US assets are at risk, alleging that the resolution professional (RP) withdrew American legal proceedings initiated by Think & Learn against its lenders. The Supreme Court did not grant a stay on asset disposal but said it would evaluate interim relief at the next hearing. Notices were issued to the former interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava, current RP Shailendra Ajmera, Byju's director Riju Ravindran, and Glas Trust, representing the US lenders. The promoters' legal challenge comes after the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refused to allow the insolvency withdrawal, citing the formation of the CoC. The dispute adds a fresh layer to the high-stakes financial and legal troubles surrounding Byju's, which has been under intense scrutiny from regulators, creditors, and investors over the past year. The outcome of the July 21 hearing could determine whether Byju's can exit the insolvency process based on the timing and validity of the BCCI settlement.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
BCCI settlement: Supreme Court to hear Byju's insolvency appeals
BENGALURU: The has admitted two appeals in the ongoing insolvency proceedings of Think & Learn, the parent entity of Byju's. The appeals were filed by the company's promoters and cricket body BCCI. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The apex court has scheduled the next hearing for July 21. The cases stem from the insolvency application filed by the BCCI, which alleged unpaid dues from Byju's, a former Team India sponsor. However, both BCCI and Byju's claimed that a Rs 158-crore settlement was reached and executed before the constitution of the committee of creditors (CoC). The promoters are seeking withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on this pre-CoC agreement. Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the Byju's promoters, argued that the BCCI settlement was "fully agreed upon, paid, and formally communicated to the interim resolution professional well before the CoC was constituted." Supporting the plea, senior counsel Guru Krishna Kumar told the court that the company's US assets are at risk, alleging that the resolution professional withdrew American legal proceedings initiated by Think & Learn against its lenders. The promoters' legal challenge comes after the NCLAT refused to allow the insolvency withdrawal, citing the formation of CoC. The dispute adds a fresh layer to the legal troubles surrounding Byju's, which has been under intense scrutiny from regulators, creditors, and investors over the past year. The July 21 hearing could determine whether Byju's can exit the insolvency process based on the timing and validity of the BCCI settlement.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC admits appeals in Byju's insolvency case, next hearing on July 21
BENGALURU: The has admitted two appeals in the ongoing insolvency proceedings of Think & Learn, the parent of edtech firm Byju's, filed by the company's promoters and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The apex court has scheduled the next hearing for July 21, 2025, where it will consider interim reliefs sought by the petitioners. The cases stem from the insolvency application filed by the BCCI, which alleged unpaid dues from Byju's, a former team India sponsor. However, both BCCI and Byju's have claimed that a Rs 158 crore settlement was reached and fully executed before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The promoters are seeking withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the basis of this pre-CoC agreement. Senior advocate KK. Venugopal, appearing for the Byju's promoters, argued that the BCCI settlement was 'fully agreed upon, paid, and formally communicated to the interim resolution professional well before the CoC was constituted.' Supporting the plea, senior counsel Guru Krishna Kumar told the court that the company's US assets are at risk, alleging that the resolution professional (RP) has withdrawn American legal proceedings initiated by Think & Learn against its lenders. The Supreme Court did not grant a stay on asset disposal but said it would evaluate interim relief at the next hearing. Notices were issued to the former interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava, current RP Shailendra Ajmera, Byju's director Riju Ravindranand Glas Trust, representing the US lenders. The promoters' legal challenge comes after the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refused to allow the insolvency withdrawal, citing the formation of the CoC. The dispute adds a fresh layer to the high-stakes financial and legal troubles surrounding Byju's, which has been under intense scrutiny from regulators, creditors, and investors over the past year. The outcome of the July 21 hearing could determine whether Byju's can exit the insolvency process based on the timing and validity of the BCCI settlement.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Supreme Court orders status quo on liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered status quo on proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL). A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the direction after noting that the limitation period is not yet over for JSW Steel Ltd to seek a review of the apex court's May 2 order. As per the order, the top court had rejected the steel major's Rs 19,000 crore bid to acquire BPSL through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) route, and ordered liquidation of the company. Appearing for JSW Steel, Senior Advocate N K Kaul said that it had time till June 2 to file the review but even before it was over, the NCLT was going ahead with the appointment of a liquidator. He contended that the company 'will be in great difficulty' if that happens. Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the NCLT proceedings were in pursuance of the Supreme Court's directions. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Committee of Creditors (CoC), said NCLT will have to hear the matter and the court could ask it to do so on June 10. Given that the court is on partial working days (summer vacation), Justice Nagarathna pointed out that review petitions are not usually listed during such period. Mehta said that some way will have to be found. Justice Nagarathna said JSW Steel has a right to file review and added, 'We don't know what will be the fate of' it and it would therefore be appropriate that both sides maintain status quo in the meanwhile. Appearing for JSW ex-promoter Sanjay Singhal, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta opposed JSW's plea. Referring to Singhal, the Solicitor General, however, said, 'The less they speak, it is better for them. They are already under a chargesheet. Having left the company years ago, they are now pressuring the NCLT. You are the creator of the problem.' The bench recorded Kaul's submission that the review petition will be filed before the expiry of the limitation period and said in its order, 'without observing anything on the merits, we find that the interests of justice would be subserved, and in order to avoid future complications in the matter, if there is a status quo of the proceedings pending before the NCLT.' A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi, since retired, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had on May 2 rejected JSW Steel's bid to acquire BPSL and ordered the liquidation of the company. The court quashed and set aside the September 5, 2019, NCLT order and February 17, 2020, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order upholding JSW's resolution plan. Exercising suo motu powers under Article 142, the court also directed NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against BPSL. BPSL was among the 12 big accounts – infamously known as the 'dirty dozen' constituting about 25 per cent of the total non-performing assets in the country – identified by the Reserve Bank of India for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by a circular dated June 13, 2017. JSW acquired BPSL in March 2021 under the code. JSW group chairman and managing director Sajjan Jindal had then said that the acquisition had helped the group make an entry into Odisha and east India.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
NCLAT directs NCLT to promptly decide stay on EoI for Jaiprakash Power, Jaypee Fertilisers
The insolvency appellate tribunal has directed the NCLT to promptly decide on the stay of the process of inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) regarding two Jaiprakash Associates group's investments in Jaiprakash Power Venture and Jaypee Fertilisers & Industry. In an order on April 29, 2025, the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal stayed the process of inviting EoI by the Resolution Professional of debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), which is currently going through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). This order was immediately challenged by the National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), which is the assignee of 85 per cent of debts of the banks to JAL and the Resolution Professional (RP), before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. However, a three-member bench of the NCLAT , led by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan, observed that the matter is already scheduled for hearing before the Allahabad bench on May 26, 2025, hence it directed it to consider the reply filed by the lenders' body CoC (Committee of Creditors) and RP. "The application having been fixed for May 26, 2025, we request the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to consider the application as well as the reply submitted by the RP and CoC to take a decision with regard to further process without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order," the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) said in its order passed on May 20. "Looking to the facts that CIRP is a time-bound process, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) shall endeavour to dispose of the application on the date fixed or as early as possible," it said. The NCLAT also asked Sunil Kumar Sharma, the suspended director of JAL, on whose plea the NCLT stayed the process of EoI, to file a rejoinder, if any, and mentioned that it has "not expressed any opinion on the respective submissions" of the parties before it. The appellate tribunal was hearing appeals filed by the National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL) and Resolution Professional (RP), challenging the status quo granted by the NCLT on the issuance of EoI. Under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, RP issues EoIs for companies under CIRP, to invite potential resolution applicants to submit their resolution plans for the debt-ridden company. On April 29, 2025, though the NCLT issued notice to the resolution professional of JAL, it also directed to stay the process of inviting bids for Jaiprakash Power Ventures and Jaypee Fertilizers. "Meanwhile, with regard to the relief sought by the Applicant to issue ex-parte ad-interim stay on inviting EOI as resolved by the Committee of Creditors in the 11th meeting of the Committee of Creditors for the sale of investment of Corporate Debtor in Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (JPVL) and Jaypee Fertilizers & Industries Limited and/or Kanpur Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited (JFIL/KFCL), the status quo deserves to be maintained till further order," the NCLAT had said. NARCL submitted before the appellate tribunal that the NCLT has not given any reasons in the impugned order for passing the order of status quo whereas reasons, if any, were only for issuing notice. It contended that there have to be reasons for passing an interim order, including irreparable loss, balance of convenience and prima facie case for passing of an interim order, which has the effect of staying the process of CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process), which is a time-bound process. Sunil Kumar Sharma has submitted that NCLT had raised concerns regarding the process to invite bids for the sale of certain investments, citing the proposed sale being premature, lacking transparency, and risking prejudice to the stakeholders' interests. The applicant had pointed out the failure to consider existing encumbrances, proper valuation, and the need for prior CoC approval, emphasising that any asset sale must ensure maximum realisation and legal compliance governing the CIRP process. However, despite his objection, RP convened a CoC meeting. Investments of JAL in Jaiprakash Power Ventures are encumbered, while investments in Jaypee Fertilisers & Industry are unencumbered. Sharma further submitted that there are certain mandatory preconditions under the IBC to be fulfilled for a valid sale, which include the sale must pertain to unencumbered assets, there must be a formed opinion that such a sale is necessary for better realisation of value under the circumstances; the book value of all assets sold during the CIRP must not exceed 10 per cent of the total admitted claims.
