The Supreme Court has issued a notice on appeals by BCCI and Riju Raveendran against the NCLAT’s decision on Byju’s insolvency case. Learn about the legal developments, key arguments, and what’s next in the Think & Learn Pvt Ltd saga.

Supreme Court Reviews Appeals in Byju’s Insolvency Case

On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice in response to appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Raveendran. These appeals challenge a ruling by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which denied BCCI’s attempt to withdraw its insolvency application against Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Byju’s, without prior approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Background of Byju’s Insolvency Case

BCCI’s Initial Insolvency Petition

The matter dates back to July 16, 2024, when the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted BCCI’s insolvency application due to unpaid dues amounting to ₹158.90 crore. A subsequent settlement between BCCI and Byju’s was initially approved by NCLAT.

However, Glas Trust, a financial creditor, appealed the approval. On October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court nullified the NCLAT’s approval and instructed BCCI to file a fresh application with the NCLT.

CoC Formation and Withdrawal Application

On August 16, 2024, BCCI submitted a Form FA withdrawal application to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, it was directed that the request could only be submitted to the NCLT after Glas Trust’s appeal was resolved. Meanwhile, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted on August 21, 2024.

The Form FA was eventually submitted to the NCLT on November 14, 2024. The NCLT ruled that the settlement proposal must first be approved by 90% of the CoC under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 before allowing withdrawal.

NCLAT Upholds NCLT Decision

On April 17, 2025, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT ruling, stating that:

• The relevant date is when the withdrawal application is filed with the NCLT, not when submitted to the IRP.

• Since the CoC was already constituted, its approval was mandatory.

• The 90% CoC voting threshold under Section 12A applied in full.

The NCLAT also rejected BCCI’s argument that the IRP delayed the application process, stating the delay was caused by BCCI itself.

Riju Raveendran’s Plea Dismissed

Entrepreneur Riju Raveendran also filed an appeal, claiming that his impleadment application was not properly heard. However, NCLAT dismissed his claim, confirming that he had participated in hearings and presented his arguments. Dissatisfied, Raveendran has now moved the Supreme Court seeking relief.

What’s Next in Byju’s Insolvency Case?

A Supreme Court bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar has requested responses from Byju’s creditors and its insolvency resolution professional. The court will hear the request for interim relief on July 21, 2025.

This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of insolvency resolution under the IBC and the critical role of the Committee of Creditors in approving settlements once a company enters the insolvency process.

Key Takeaways:

• Supreme Court notice issued in response to appeals by BCCI and Riju Raveendran.

• NCLAT upheld that CoC approval is mandatory for withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC.

• Next Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for July 21, 2025.