BCCI and Byju's logos 
Litigation News

Supreme Court dismisses plea against BCCI–Byju’s insolvency withdrawal

The BCCI had initiated insolvency proceedings against Byju’s before the NCLT in November 2023, citing unpaid dues of ₹158.90 crore.

S N Thyagarajan

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas 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 of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the NCLAT's order.

Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was appearing for Riju Raveendran, took exception to the manner in which the case was dismissed. He said,

"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, did not respond.

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal

The BCCI had initiated insolvency proceedings against Byju’s before the NCLT in July 2024, citing unpaid dues of ₹158.90 crore. After a settlement was reached between the two entities, BCCI sought to withdraw the application by submitting Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in August 2024. However, the CoC was constituted a few days later, on August 21, 2024, and the withdrawal application was ultimately filed before the NCLT only in November 2024.

Both the NCLT and NCLAT ruled that since the application was formally filed before the adjudicating authority after CoC formation, BCCI was required to obtain approval from 90% of the CoC members as mandated by Section 12A. The NCLAT clarified that the “date of filing” under Regulation 30A refers to the date of submission before the NCLT, not to the IRP.

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.

BCCI was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate CK Nandakumar along with Advocates R Sudhinder, Aditya Chaudhary, Bhavya Mohan, Aastha Trivedi, Anjali Kutiyal, Anushka Sharma, Bhuvan Kapoor and Karthik from Argus Partners.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

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.

Kapil Sibal

The RP was represented by Senior Advocate Paramjit Patwalia along with a team from Chandiok & Mahajan comprising Advocates Pooja Mahajan, Arveena Sharma, Savar Mahajan, Ichchha Kalash and Samridhi Shrimali.

Byju Raveendran was represented by Senior Advocates Guru Krishnakumar and Haripriya Padmanabhan.

PMLA Appellate Tribunal confirms ED attachment of Chanda Kochhar’s assets in Videocon loan case

FEMA Section 6(3) and the omission paradox: Divergent High Court rulings and overlooked Supreme Court guidance

Aadhaar, ration card not valid proof of voter eligibility: ECI to Supreme Court in Bihar electoral roll case

Welfare of child overrides Muslim personal law: Bombay High Court grants custody of child to mother

UP govt officers care for court orders only when summoned: Allahabad High Court

SCROLL FOR NEXT