Supreme Court dismisses Byju Raveendran’s plea against NCLAT order on Byju’s–BCCI settlement

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran challenging an April 17 judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on settlement of claims of Board of Control for Cricket in India [Byju Raveendran Vs Pankaj Srivastava]..The NCLAT's Chennai Bench had refused to treat the settlement of BCCI’s claim as a pre-Committee of Creditors (pre-CoC) settlement and directed it to place its settlement proposal before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the edtech entity's parent company.It had also directed that that BCCI's application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) must be placed before the CoC since it was filed after the constitution of the CoC and hence required CoC approval under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).The Supreme Court Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan today refused to interfere with that verdict and dismissed Byju Raveendran's appeal against the same.A detailed copy of the order is awaited..The insolvency case began when BCCI filed a petition under Section 9 IBC against Byju's for resolution of debt amounting to ₹158.90 crore. The NCLT admitted this application on July 16, 2024.Subsequently, Byju's settled with BCCI and the settlement was approved by NCLAT in July 2024. However, the Supreme Court on October 23 allowed an appeal filed by US-based financial creditor Glas Trust challenging the NCLAT decision to halt insolvency proceedings initiated against Think & Learn, basis the settlement. The apex court asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the settlement.Although BCCI submitted Form FA (application for withdrawal) to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it specifically instructed the IRP to file the same only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme Court. The CoC was constituted on August 21, 2024 and the IRP eventually filed the withdrawal application on November 14, 2024..The primary contention before NCLAT was whether the withdrawal application dated August 16, 2024 should be treated as having been filed before the CoC was constituted, and thus governed by Regulation 30A(1)(a), which does not require CoC approval.The appellants argued that the settlement was arrived at between the parties before the CoC was constituted and Form FA was also submitted to the IRP to be filed before NCLT on August 16. Therefore, the right of the appellant cannot be defeated if Form FA is filed after the constitution of the CoC.However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the date of filing before the Adjudicating Authority, not the date of submission to the IRP, determines applicability..It also rejected claims that the IRP delayed the application’s filing in violation of Regulation 30A(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.This led to the appeal before the top court..Byju Raveendran was represented by Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa..The respondents Glas Trust and Aditya Birla were represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.