New Delhi, Nov 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran challenging a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that refused to treat the settlement of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) claim as a pre-Committee of Creditors (pre-CoC) settlement.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan declined to interfere with the NCLAT’s April 17 ruling, which had directed that BCCI’s settlement proposal be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Byju’s.
In its April decision, the NCLAT’s Chennai Bench held that BCCI’s settlement proposal could not be treated as a pre-CoC settlement.
Since BCCI’s withdrawal application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was filed after the CoC’s constitution, it required CoC approval.
The date of filing before the NCLT (Adjudicating Authority), not the date of submission to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), determines whether CoC approval is mandatory.
The dispute began when BCCI filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC against Byju’s over a debt of Rs 158.90 crore.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the petition on July 16, 2024.
Although Byju’s and BCCI reached a settlement and the NCLAT initially approved it in July 2024, the Supreme Court on October 23 overturned that decision while hearing an appeal filed by US-based financial creditor Glas Trust.
The Court directed BCCI to approach the NCLT for approval of the settlement.
On August 16, 2024, the BCCI submitted Form FA (withdrawal application) to the IRP but directed him not to file it until a pending Supreme Court appeal was resolved.
August 21, 2024: The CoC was constituted.
November 14, 2024: The IRP eventually filed the Form FA before the NCLT.
Before the NCLAT, Byju’s argued that since the settlement and the submission of Form FA occurred before the CoC’s formation, it should be treated as a pre-CoC settlement under Regulation 30A(1)(a), which does not require CoC approval.
However, the NCLAT rejected this contention, holding that the actual filing date before the NCLT governs the applicability of Section 12A.
The Tribunal also rejected allegations that the IRP had caused a delay contrary to Regulation 30A(3).
The Supreme Court today dismissed Byju Raveendran’s appeal, thereby affirming the NCLAT’s reasoning that CoC approval is required since the withdrawal application was filed after its constitution.
Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa appeared for Byju Raveendran.
For Respondents Glas Trust & Aditya Birla, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan appeared.
A detailed order of the Supreme Court is awaited.
The matter now proceeds in accordance with the NCLAT’s directions.
