NCLAT declines stay on CoC reviewing Rs 158 crore BCCI-Byju’s settlement offer

NCLAT declines stay on CoC reviewing Rs 158 cr BCCI-Byju’s settlement offer

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai on February 19 refused to grant an interim relief to Riju Raveendran, a director at beleaguered edtech firm Byju’s, who had sought to keep his Rs 158 crore settlement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) outside the purview of its Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Riju, the younger brother of the edtech firm’s founder Byju Raveendran, argued before NCLAT that the settlement with BCCI had been finalized before the CoC was constituted.

A Committee of Creditors is a group of financial creditors who represent and make decisions for a company during insolvency proceedings.

The NCLAT will now hear Riju’s plea on March 3.

On February 10, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed BCCI to submit the Rs 158 crore settlement plea before the CoC. If the plea were to be accepted, Byju’s would be able to exit insolvency proceedings.

However, lenders, which include US-based Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance, opposed the move, calling the settlement amount with the BCCI “tainted money”. To be sure, Glas Trust holds a 99.41 percent voting share in the CoC due to its Rs 11,432 crore claim.

Both BCCI and Byju’s have, however, contested this claim, saying the settlement money was 'clean', tax paid money.

Earlier this month, Riju Raveendran had also approached NCLAT against an earlier National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that reinstated Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance in the CoC of the edtech firm.

This came after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), on January 29, passed an order directing disciplinary proceedings against Byju’s resolution professional (RP) and overturned his decision to exclude Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance from the CoC.

The matter was subsequently heard by the Chennai bench of NCLAT. However, one of the members of the bench, Justice Sarad Kumar Sharma, recused himself from hearing the case due to his previous association with the BCCI, which had filed a petition against Byju’s for recovery of dues.