21-07-2025
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.
