Kiran Raj

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has directed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to submit its application for withdrawing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) plea against Think & Learn Private Limited, the parent company of Byju’s, before the company’s Committee of Creditors (CoC). The decision follows an earlier directive from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which instructed the NCLT to decide on the withdrawal application within a week.

The case concerns an insolvency plea filed by the BCCI against Byju’s over unpaid sponsorship dues amounting to ₹158 crore. The plea was admitted by the NCLT Bengaluru on July 16, 2023, initiating the CIRP against Think & Learn Private Limited. Subsequently, Byju’s reached a settlement agreement with the BCCI, prompting the latter to seek withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Srinivasa Raghavan, representing the petitioners, contended that the Resolution Professional (RP), Pankaj Srivastava, had not scheduled a meeting with the newly formed CoC, despite explicit directions from the NCLT. It was alleged that the RP had been delaying the process without valid justification. Senior Advocate Promod Nair, appearing for Aditya Birla Finance, urged the NCLT to examine the issue and take necessary action. The tribunal instructed all parties to file appropriate applications to place these concerns on record.

The case was also the subject of an appeal before the NCLAT, filed by Riju Raveendran, a suspended director of Byju’s. Raveendran challenged the NCLT’s decision to reinstate Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance into the CoC, arguing that the reconstitution was improper while the withdrawal application remained pending. He contended that since a full settlement had already been reached with the BCCI before the CoC was constituted, the withdrawal application should have been prioritized over the CoC’s formation.

His plea also referenced a Supreme Court order that permitted BCCI and Raveendran to pursue legal remedies post-settlement. Raveendran argued that the NCLT’s decision to proceed with the CoC’s reconstitution without addressing the withdrawal application went against the Supreme Court’s instructions. He maintained that if the withdrawal application were approved, the CoC’s formation would be unnecessary.

The NCLT, comprising Judicial Member K. Biswal and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramaswamy, issued the following directives:

1. Submission of Withdrawal Application: BCCI must submit its application for withdrawal of the insolvency plea before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which will determine its approval.

2. CoC’s Decision on Withdrawal: The CoC is now responsible for deciding whether the CIRP process against Byju’s can be withdrawn.

3. Resolution Professional’s Conduct: Concerns regarding delays in convening the CoC meeting must be formally brought before the tribunal through appropriate applications.

4. Compliance with NCLAT’s Order: The tribunal’s directive aligns with the NCLAT’s instruction to decide on the withdrawal application within a week.

Case Title: BCCI v. Think & Learn Private Limited
Case Number: N/A
Bench: Judicial Member K. Biswal and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramaswamy

[Order awaited]