According to senior advocate CK Nandakumar, representing the cricket board, the Rs 158-crore settlement with the edtech company was reached before the CoC was formed. As a result, he argued that the tribunal should have made the decision, rather than passing it on to the creditors for consideration.
On February 10, the NCLT asked the CoC to decide on the application. This came after the reconstitution of the CoC was set aside. The CoC now constitutes Glas Trust, Aditya Birla Finance, Incred Financial Services and ICICI Bank as financial creditors.
“What has happened is that, due to multiple orders from different courts and tribunals, a settlement reached at a time when there was no controversy has now taken a completely different ramification. Ultimately, their (Glas Trust) rights were protected at their request,” Kumar told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Kumar reiterated that the withdrawal application was submitted to interim RP, Pankaj Srivastava, prior to the formation of the CoC. However, Srivastava had filed the application with the NCLT after the CoC was constituted.
Senior advocate Arun Kathpalia, representing Ravindran, argued that the IRP was at fault for failing to submit the application to the NCLT, as it was his responsibility to do so. He also expressed concern that the suspended directors had not been given a chance to be heard and that the tribunal had issued orders that would affect them.
Discover the stories of your interest
Glas Trust, representing the US lenders of Think & Learn, argued that by the time the application was presented to the NCLT, the CoC had already been formed, and it was BCCI’s intention not to submit the application to the tribunal.“I had written in that letter, saying that it is subject to the outcome of the petition and the appeal being allowed, and that please don’t file it when the Honourable Supreme Court is seized of the matter. Please wait because ultimately, when the Superior Court is seized of the matter, it is my duty also to not precipitate matters,” Kumar said while explaining why the IRP did not submit the application.
Kapil Sibal, representing Glas Trust also opposed the impleadment application filed by Byju’s promoters.
“CoC stands constituted. All decisions will be taken by the CoC. Any application has to be decided by the CoC…Promoters have no role at that stage,” he said.
Byju’s insolvency proceedings began last year after the BCCI moved the NCLT to recover the Rs 158 crore that it was owed by the company for a sponsorship deal. Last year in August, the NCLAT had approved the settlement between the parties after Ravindran agreed to pay the money to the BCCI. However, in October, the top court quashed an earlier NCLAT ruling approving the settlement.
Also Read: ETtech Explainer: Edtech company Byju’s legal woes take new turn