The CLICKC control council in India (BCCI) and RIJU RAVINDRAN, co-founder of Byju’s, challenged a national order of the Court of Companies Law (NCLT) concerning the Insolvency resolution of the EDTECH company. This dispute, focused on a regulation of the RS 158-Core sponsorship agreement, stems from the NCLT directive to the creditors’ committee (COC) to decide the request, despite the agreement concluded before the COC.
The main lawyer CK Nandakumar, representing the BCCI, argued before the National Law Court of Appeal (NCLAT) that the decision should not have been delegated to creditors, given the regulation calendar, the economic time said.
The BCCI has initiated the insolvency procedure against the last year of ByJU to recover the amount due to a sponsorship contract. A first regulation was approved by the NCLAT last August after Ravindran agreed to fulfill the financial obligation. However, this regulation was canceled by a higher court in October, complicating the resolution process.
The recent NCLT decision to involve the COC, which includes Glas Trust, Aditya Birla Finance, incredible Financial Services and Icici Bank as financial creditors, has led to a new legal assertion. Nandakumar stressed that the rules had occurred “at a time when there was no controversy”, only to be complicated by subsequent legal developments.
The lawyer for Ravindran, the main lawyer Arun Kathpalia, criticized the interim resolution professional (IRP) Pankaj Srivastava for having omitted to submit the NCLT in time in time, before the training of the COC.
Kathpalia argued that surveillance of the IRP led to the current situation where the decision -making authority of the COC is questioned. Glas Trust, representing the American lenders of Byju, maintains that the involvement of the COC is necessary, claiming that BCCI intended to bypass the court.
Kapil Sibal, representative Glas Trust, said: “The COC stands are formed. All decisions will be made by the COC. Any request must be decided by the COC … The promoters have no role at this stage.” This underlines the procedural complexities of the case and the variable interpretations of the rights of creditors.
Adding to this complex legal discourse, Nandakumar underlined the procedural missteps, stressing that “several orders from various courts and courts” modified the context in which the regulation of origin was reached. He argued that Trust’s Glas rights were kept at their request, complicating the execution of the regulations and disturbing the planned resolution process. This highlights an in progress debate on the jurisdictional authority and the appropriate sequence of legal procedures in cases of insolvency. The case illustrates the challenges faced by the entities involved in multilayer legal environments, where overlapping jurisdictions can have an impact on decision -making processes.
Despite these complexities, the insistence on procedural integrity remains at the heart of the current legal battle. The position of Nandakumar, cited, “I had written in this letter, saying that it is subject to the end of the petition and that the appeal is authorized, and that please do not deposit it when the Honorable Supreme Court is seized of the question”, reflects the concern to ensure that the judicial processes are respected and not premature. While the case continues, it reflects broader challenges in the landscape of the bankruptcy of companies in India, where the legal clarity and the rights of creditors are often in tension, influencing the results of financial disputes with high issues.
