Latest news with #RijuRaveendran
Hans India
22-07-2025
- Business
- Hans India
No relief for BCCI in Byju's insolvency battle
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order rejecting the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings initiated against the embattled edtech company. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the joint appeals challenging the April 17 decision of the Chennai bench of NCLAT, which had affirmed the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru. The NCLT had on February 10 directed that the settlement proposal submitted by BCCI and Raveendran be placed before the newly constituted Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Byju's parent entity, Think & Learn Pvt the heart of the dispute was whether the withdrawal application for insolvency under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was filed before or after the formation of the CoC. Section 12A provides that withdrawal of insolvency requires the consent of 90% of the CoC if filed after the committee's constitution. BCCI and Raveendran had argued that the application — submitted via Form FA — was made before the CoC's formation and thus did not require such approval, invoking Regulation 30A(1)(a) of the IBBI regulations. However, the NCLAT noted that Form FA was submitted on November 14, 2024 — after the CoC was formed — making the application subject to the requirements of Section 12A and Regulation 30A(1)(b), thereby necessitating 90% creditor approval. The tribunal rejected the claim that the delay was caused by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), holding that the statutory timelines had already lapsed. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was triggered on July 16, 2024, based on BCCI's Rs 158.9 crore operational creditor claim arising out of a 2019 team sponsorship deal. A settlement between the two parties was later reached, prompting Raveendran to seek withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings.
India.com
21-07-2025
- Business
- India.com
Supreme Court Rejects BCCI And BYJUS Promoters Appeals Against NCLAT Order On Insolvency Withdrawal
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran challenging a NCLAT Chennai order which denied the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings initiated by the BCCI. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the NCLAT's April 17 order. On April 17, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had set aside the appeals filed by BCCI and Byju's Riju Ravindran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against Byju's. NCLAT had held that any application to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd. (the company running Byju's) requires the support of 90 per cent of its Committee of Creditors (CoC). They had challenged in NCLAT, the order passed by the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had on February 10, directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes $1.2 billion, is a member. Filing the appeal in the top court, BCCI and Ravindran have sought a withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings saying they have entered into a settlement of Rs 158 crore, and this was done much before the constitution of CoC. Meanwhile, reacting to the Supreme Court's order, Counsel of BYJU'S Founders said in a statement, "It is disappointing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not rule in favour of the termination of BYJU's bankruptcy. The termination would have benefitted millions of students who are being deprived of BYJU'S learning system, and thousands of employees." "We are examining the implications of today's order and will decide the future course of action after due consideration. BYJU'S Founders will not stop their efforts to terminate the company's bankruptcy and remain confident that eventually justice will be found through the courts." the statement added.
India Today
21-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's and BCCI pleas against insolvency withdrawal
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April thoughts on the verdict, the counsel representing Byju's founders expressed disappointment. An official statement issued by Byju's read, "The termination would have benefitted millions of students who are being deprived of BYJU'S learning system, and thousands of employees."It added, "We are examining the implications of today's order and will decide the future course of action after due consideration. BYJU'S Founders will not stop their efforts to terminate the company's bankruptcy and remain confident that eventually justice will be found through the courts."The BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which on February 10 directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 billion, is a Chennai bench comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of the CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's BCCI and Raveendran contended that since the application under Section 12A was filed before the constitution of the CoC, the provisions of Section 12A coupled with Regulation 30A(1)(a) shall apply and not Regulation 30A(1)(b).Section 12 A of the IBC prescribes an exit route from insolvency. It mandates that NCLT may allow the withdrawal of insolvency initiated by any financial or operational creditor under Sections 7,9 or section 10, based on an application made with the approval of 90 per cent voting share of the 30A(1)(a) deals with the provision of filing Section 12 A proceedings through the interim resolution profession before formation of CoC, whereas 30A(1)(b) deals with provision of filing after formation of BCCI and Byju's contending Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju' rejecting the plea, NCLAT said, "Form FA, admittedly having been filed on November 14, 2024, is post (formation of) CoC.""If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of the CoC, then Section 12A, which mandates the approval of such an application for withdrawal by a 90 per cent voting share of the CoC, shall not apply, but if the application is filed after the constitution of the CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force," said CIRP against Byju's was initiated on July 16, 2024 by NCLAT admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An IRP was also appointed by the NCLT in this a settlement arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024 after approving dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Trust, a financial creditor, also filed a separate petition before NCLT seeking resolution of its debt of USD 984.3 million (approximately Rs 8,200 crore).advertisementThe apex court on October 23, 2024, set aside the NCLAT order staying the CIRP against Think & Learn, which owns edtech brand Byju's and asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the BCCI submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it had instructed the IRP to file it only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court rejects BCCI, Byju's plea to withdraw insolvency case
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an appeal by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, an operational creditor, seeking withdrawal of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think & Learn, the parent company of online education services company Byju's. The apex court also dismissed another appeal of Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran, who also wanted withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings against Think & Learn. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Artificial Intelligence Finance Product Management Data Science Healthcare Digital Marketing MBA Project Management others CXO Management Public Policy Leadership Data Analytics Design Thinking Operations Management Cybersecurity Data Science Others Technology Degree PGDM healthcare Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed the resolution professional to present the withdrawal application before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the debt-laden company. The cricket board told the SC that the NCLAT had erred in not appreciating the uncontested fact that the settlement culminated prior to the constitution of the CoC of Think & Learn. Besides, the tribunal could not have shifted the responsibility of deciding the withdrawal application to the lenders, it added. Supporting BCCI's stand, Raveendran argued that the NCLAT order was 'erroneous and perverse' as the SC, despite setting out various scenarios in which the filing of the withdrawal application arises, had not held that the parties are relegated to post-CoC constitution stage in the present case. 'On the contrary, it states that when the settlement was permitted before the NCLAT, it was a situation where there was a withdrawal before the constitution of the CoC. However, while finally remitting the parties to the NCLT to seek such remedies as available to them in law, the SC (August 14 order) has specifically not held that such a withdrawal can only be after approval of CoC,' Raveendran said, adding the BCCI's claims stand fully settled as per the settlement terms of July 30. He further submitted that the SC stay on settlement proceedings last year did not automatically revive the CIRP. Stating the purported constitution of the CoC was wholly illegal and perverse, the appeal contended that ICICI Bank, which had nil dues, could not have been included. 'Even US lender GLAS Trust Co. LLC is not a financial creditor. It is an alleged agent of a consortium, and under Section 21(6) of the IBC, the IRP should have received authorisation from each member of the consortium before permitting it to be part of the CoC, and the first CoC was provisional and not final,' the appeal added. The entire CIRP process has been vitiated by fraud, first on the part of the erstwhile IRP in connivance with Glas, Raveendran said, adding that the erstwhile IRP has now filed an affidavit admitting that he was pressured by Glas to take a series of decisions and the whole process was 'premeditated.' In an earlier round in October, the Supreme Court had set aside the NCLAT order that approved a Rs 158 crore settlement between Think & Learn and the BCCI. It also overturned the appellate tribunal's August 2 order and restored the insolvency proceedings on an appeal made by Aditya Birla Finance and Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders owed $1.2 billion, which had opposed the settlement and had sought a halt to the insolvency proceedings. Subsequently, the BCCI filed a fresh application to withdraw its insolvency plea against Think & Learn, but this was again rejected by both the tribunal and the appellate tribunal.
United News of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- United News of India
No relief for BCCI in Byju's insolvency battle, SC upholds NCLAT order
New Delhi, July 21 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Raveendran challenging an April 2025 ruling of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, which had refused to allow BCCI to withdraw its insolvency application against Byju's parent company without prior approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declined to interfere with the NCLAT's order, effectively upholding the requirement that BCCI must seek CoC approval to withdraw the proceedings. Senior advocate and former attorney general KK Venugopal, appearing for Riju Raveendran, objected to the dismissal, saying, 'I am sorry but the matter is being dismissed arbitrarily. I am in the middle of my arguments. How can your lordships dismiss the case without even hearing me?' The bench, however, remained silent and proceeded to dismiss the plea. The BCCI had initiated insolvency proceedings against Byju's before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in July 2024, citing unpaid dues of Rs 158.90 crore. Following a settlement, BCCI sought to withdraw the application by submitting Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in August 2024. However, since the Committee of Creditors was constituted shortly thereafter on August 21, 2024, and the formal withdrawal application was filed only in November 2024, both NCLT and NCLAT ruled that approval from 90% of CoC members under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was mandatory. The NCLAT clarified that under Regulation 30A, the 'date of filing' refers to the submission date before the NCLT and not merely to the IRP. Riju Raveendran, who had filed a separate plea alleging he was not heard on his impleadment application, also faced dismissal. The NCLAT had noted that Raveendran was present during hearings and had already raised all relevant arguments. BCCI was represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate CK Nandakumar, along with a team from Argus Partners including advocates R Sudhinder, Aditya Chaudhary, Bhavya Mohan, Aastha Trivedi, Anjali Kutiyal, Anushka Sharma, Bhuvan Kapoor, and Karthik. Glas Trust was represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Krishnendu Datta with advocates Prateek Kumar, Raveena Rai, Moha Paranjpe, and Siddhant Grover from Khaitan & Co. The Resolution Professional was represented by senior advocate Paramjit Patwalia, while Byju Raveendran was represented by senior advocates Guru Krishnakumar and Haripriya Padmanabhan. Other respondents were represented by advocates Pooja Mahajan, Arveena Sharma, Ichchha Kalash, and Samridhi Sharmili from Chandiok & Mahajan. UNI SNG PRS
