The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice and ordered status quo in the dispute arising from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling on the legal status of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Think and Learn Private Limited (Byju’s). [Committee of Creditors, Think and Learn v. Riju Raveendran]

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan said,

"We have to hear this matter. Issue notice. Let status quo be maintained."

The development comes after the CoC challenged the February 24, 2026 judgment of the Chennai Bench of the NCLAT, which held that while a CoC is not a juristic person in the classical sense, it can litigate in its own name under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The controversy arises from the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think and Learn, admitted under Section 9 of the IBC.

In August 2024, the resolution professional constituted a four-member CoC. Within ten days, the RP reconstituted the CoC by dropping GLAS Trust Company, which held 99.41 percent voting share, and Aditya Birla Capital Limited.

Both creditors challenged their removal before the NCLT and succeeded in January 2025, resulting in their restoration to the CoC. Subsequently, a suspended director of the corporate debtor filed a plea seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the CoC.

During these proceedings, the CoC sought to implead itself as a party, arguing that the dispute affected the composition and functioning of the CoC. The NCLT rejected the impleadment plea, holding that the CoC lacked legal character and that the issue concerned only the creditor whose membership was under challenge.

The CoC appealed to the NCLAT, which delivered a significant ruling on the legal character of the CoC.

The Appellate Tribunal held that the CoC is a statutory creation and not a juristic person in the traditional sense. However, it adopted a pragmatic approach and allowed the CoC to litigate in its own name for disputes arising within the IBC framework. At the same time, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT’s refusal to implead the CoC in the specific proceedings concerning GLAS Trust’s membership.

The CoC has now approached the Supreme Court challenging this decision.

The status quo order means that the existing position regarding the CoC and the underlying proceedings will remain unchanged until the Supreme Court hears the case in detail.

The CoC was represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal.

The resolution professional was represented by Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta.

Glas Trust was represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.