Byju’s insolvency: Supreme Court issues notice on pleas by BCCI, Riju Raveendran against NCLAT ruling

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice in a set of appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Raveendran challenging a decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai which had refused to allow BCCI’s withdrawal of an insolvency case against Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (Byju’s parent company) without prior approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC)..The appeals were listed before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, which sought the response of Byju's creditors and its insolvency resolution professional. The Court said it will consider the prayer for interim relief on the next date of hearing, that is, July 21, 2025..The case dates back to July 16, 2024, when the NCLT admitted BCCI’s insolvency application against Byju’s for unpaid dues of ₹158.90 crore. A settlement was reached between BCCI and Byju’s and initially approved by the NCLAT. However, after an appeal was moved by financial creditor Glas Trust, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order on October 23, 2024. The top court directed BCCI to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) afresh.BCCI then submitted a Form FA application for the withdrawal of the insolvency plea to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024. However, this was instructed to be filed before the NCLT only after the Glas Trust's appeal was disposed of. Meanwhile, the CoC was constituted on August 21, 2024. The Form FA was ultimately filed before the NCLT on November 14, 2024. The NCLT ruled that BCCI could not withdraw the insolvency plea filed by it against Byju's under Section 9, IBC, unless it placed its settlement proposal before the CoC and obtained approval under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)..On April 17, 2025, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT's ruling. The NCLAT held that since the CoC was in existence when the withdrawal application was filed before the NCLT, its approval should have been sought before the withdrawal application was filed before the NCLT. The NCLAT held that the relevant date of filing is when the withdrawal application is filed before the NCLT, not when it is submitted to the IRP. Therefore, since the application was filed before NCLT after CoC formation, the withdrawal proposal required 90 per cent CoC approval, the NCLAT held. “Form FA, admittedly having been filed on 14.11.2024, is post CoC... If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of CoC then... approval of 90% voting share of the CoC shall not apply, but if filed after constitution of CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force,” the NCLAT explained. This NCLAT ruling has been challenged before the Supreme Court. .In its ruling, the NCLAT has also rejected an argument that the IRP had erred in not filing the application within the three-day period stipulated under Regulation 30A(3), observing that the delay was at the instruction of BCCI itself.Riju Raveendran filed a separate plea alleging that he was not heard on his impleadment application. However, this was also dismissed by NCLAT, which noted that he was present during the hearings and had already raised all relevant arguments. Raveendran has also, therefore, moved the top court for relief. .BCCI was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with Advocates R Sudhinder, Adity Chaudhary, Bhavya Mohan, Aastha Trivedi, Anjali Kutiyal, Anushka Sharma, Bhuvan Kapoor and Karthik from Argus Partners. .Byju's promoters were represented by Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Maninder Singh with Advocates Ankur Talwar, V Shyamohan, Sradhaxna Mudrika, Anshika Bajpai, Vishal Sinha, Vrinda Baheti and Vishesh Goel..Glas Trust was represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Krishnendu Datta, with Advocates Prateek Kumar, Raveena Rai, Moha Paranjpe, Siddhant Grover from Khaitan & Co..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. .[Read Order]