Supreme Court dismisses Byju's and BCCI pleas against insolvency withdrawal
An official statement issued by Byju's read, "The termination would have benefitted millions of students who are being deprived of BYJU'S learning system, and thousands of employees."It added, "We are examining the implications of today's order and will decide the future course of action after due consideration. BYJU'S Founders will not stop their efforts to terminate the company's bankruptcy and remain confident that eventually justice will be found through the courts."The BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which on February 10 directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 billion, is a member.NCLAT's Chennai bench comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of the CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's body.Both BCCI and Raveendran contended that since the application under Section 12A was filed before the constitution of the CoC, the provisions of Section 12A coupled with Regulation 30A(1)(a) shall apply and not Regulation 30A(1)(b).Section 12 A of the IBC prescribes an exit route from insolvency. It mandates that NCLT may allow the withdrawal of insolvency initiated by any financial or operational creditor under Sections 7,9 or section 10, based on an application made with the approval of 90 per cent voting share of the CoC.Regulation 30A(1)(a) deals with the provision of filing Section 12 A proceedings through the interim resolution profession before formation of CoC, whereas 30A(1)(b) deals with provision of filing after formation of CoC.The BCCI and Byju's contending Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju's.advertisementHowever, rejecting the plea, NCLAT said, "Form FA, admittedly having been filed on November 14, 2024, is post (formation of) CoC.""If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of the CoC, then Section 12A, which mandates the approval of such an application for withdrawal by a 90 per cent voting share of the CoC, shall not apply, but if the application is filed after the constitution of the CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force," said NCLAT.The CIRP against Byju's was initiated on July 16, 2024 by NCLAT admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An IRP was also appointed by the NCLT in this matter.Later, a settlement arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached NCLAT.The appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024 after approving dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in 2019.This was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Court.Glas Trust, a financial creditor, also filed a separate petition before NCLT seeking resolution of its debt of USD 984.3 million (approximately Rs 8,200 crore).advertisementThe apex court on October 23, 2024, set aside the NCLAT order staying the CIRP against Think & Learn, which owns edtech brand Byju's and asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the settlement.Although BCCI submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it had instructed the IRP to file it only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme Court.Raveendran contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal form.The NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
16 minutes ago
- India.com
Veteran India Batter Announces Retirement From Professional Cricket; Check Details
Veda Krishnamurthy, who represented India in both the ODI and T20I format, has announced her retirement from professional cricket. Veda represented India in 48 ODIs and 76 T20Is, scoring 829 runs and 875 runs respectively. The former India international had last played a T20I match in the ICC Women's T20 World Cup Final in Melbourne in 2020 while she donned the ODI colours last in 2018. She took to social media to announce her retirement. While announcing her retirement, Veda also added that she was ready to give back to the game. "A small-town girl with big dreams. That's how it all started in Kadur. I picked up a bat not knowing where it would take me. But I knew I loved the game. I never imagined it would take me this far from narrow streets to the biggest stadiums, from quiet hopes to proudly wearing the Indian jersey. Cricket gave me so much more than just a career. It gave me a sense of who I am. It taught me how to fight, how to fall and how to keep showing up. Today, with a full heart, I'm calling time on this chapter," Krishnamurthy said in her post. Apart from her India career, Veda also captained Karnataka and Railways in the domestic circuit. In 2023, she led Karnataka to runners-up finish in the Senior Women's One Day Trophy for successive years in 2021-22 and 2022-23. "To my parents and siblings, especially my sister, thank you for being my first team and my constant strength. To my coaches, captains and mentors, thank you for shaping me. To BCCI, thank you for trusting me with the honour of representing India. To KSCA, Railways and KIOC, thank you for giving me the space to grow," she further wrote. "To my teammates, you made every bit of this journey worth it. We've shared everything - wins, losses and laughs that will stay with me forever. You were never just teammates. You were family. To my friends, thank you for being there, especially when no one was watching. Captaining Karnataka and Railways was an honour I'll always hold close. Those teams shaped me, challenged me, and gave me space to lead with heart. And India... nothing comes to the feeling of wearing that jersey. The anthem, the Adrenaline, the pride - it lives in your bones forever," she added. In her retirement post, Veda also wrote about how she felt proud to be a part of the team in 2017 - a remarkable year for women's cricket in India, when the team reached the ICC Women's World Cup final at Lord's. "And 2017... what a year to be part of a World Cup that changed how people saw women's cricket in India. I'll always be proud of that. To the physios, trainers, seelctors, and every single person who worked behind the scenes, thank you," she wrote. "This game gave me everything. And I'll always be grateful for it. Now it's time to give back. Whatever the role, whatever the way, I'm here for the game. I truly believe this second innings will be just as meaningful. I played with fire in my heart and pride in every step. Always for the team. Always for India," she concluded. Her final on-field appearance came during WPL 2024, where she represented Gujarat Giants. She has also worked as a commentator and broadcaster.
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
The Big ‘Mc' Feud: Here's why a Gujarat snack maker is suing McDonald's
McPatel Foods Private Limited has filed a civil suit against McDonald's Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court. The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving 'groundless threats' from the American fast-food chain due to its use of the mark 'McPatel.' The Indian snack maker filed the suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to prevent McDonald's from initiating or threatening legal action over its use of the 'Mc' prefix in its corporate and product branding. The case is listed for hearing on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported. The conflict began when McPatel Foods applied to register the mark 'McPatel' under Class 30 (covering bakery goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024. However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald's filed an objection before the Indian Trade Marks Registry against this application. In its notice of opposition, McDonald's alleged the following: Deceptive similarity: McDonald's claims that the 'McPatel' mark is deceptively similar to its 'Mc' and 'Mac' family of trademarks, including McDonald's, McFries, McChicken and others. Acquired distinctiveness: The 'Mc' prefix, according to McDonald's has gained distinctiveness globally since the 1970s, and since 1996 in India due to its widespread use. Global enforcement: McDonald's argues that its trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries, solely with an aim to protect against third-party use of 'Mc'-formative marks. Dominant element: The fast-food chain also argues that 'Patel' and 'Foods' are quite common, making 'Mc' the dominant and source-identifying element in 'McPatel'. Bad intention: McDonald's also alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to benefit from McDonald's goodwill, leading to confusion and deception and of the brand's reputation. In its counter statement filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods denied all allegations, asserting the following: Legitimate adoption: The Indian snack maker claimed that the mark was adopted from its registered corporate name and trading style, with no intent to misrepresent or unfairly benefit from McDonald's reputation. Distinct identity: The company said that it is a legally incorporated Indian MSME specialising in processed food, particularly in frozen French fries and their mark is also visually, phonetically and conceptually different from McDonald's trademarks. No prior conflict: The Trademark Registrar is said to have found no conflicting marks at the examination stage, leading to the application's acceptance and advertisement. Lack of evidence: McPatel also pointed to the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception. Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is driven by 'business jealousy' and is filed in bad faith to harass a domestic company. McPatel stood by its rationale that 'Mc' is a common prefix and McDonald's cannot claim monopoly over it across all combinations or industries. As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on the dispute. The ongoing litigation is expected to cause further delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
US lifts sanctions on Myanmar junta allies after general praises Trump
The US has lifted sanctions on several Myanmar military-linked firms and individuals, days after junta chief Min Aung Hlaing sent a glowing letter of praise to President Donald Trump. read more The United States has lifted sanctions on several allies of Myanmar's ruling general and their military-linked firms, a US Treasury notice shows, after the junta chief sent a glowing letter of praise to President Donald Trump. Junta chief Min Aung Hlaing seized power in a 2021 coup, deposing the civilian government and sparking a civil war that has killed thousands, leaving 3.5 million displaced and half the nation in poverty. Two weeks ago, the top general sent a letter to Trump, responding to his threat of tariffs by lauding his presidency with praise, including for shutting down US-funded media outlets covering the conflict. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A US Treasury notice on Thursday said sanctions were dropped against KT Services and Logistics, the Myanmar Chemical and Machinery Company, and Suntac Technologies – as well as their managers. In a statement, a US Treasury Department spokesperson denied there was an 'ulterior motive' in the move, although the notice did not provide a reason for the removals. 'Anyone suggesting these sanctions were lifted for an ulterior motive is uninformed and peddling a conspiracy theory driven by hatred for President Trump,' said the spokesperson, on condition of anonymity. They added that individuals were 'regularly added and removed' from the sanctions list 'in the ordinary course of business.' KT Services and Logistics and its CEO Jonathan Myo Kyaw Thaung were described as junta 'cronies' when they were sanctioned in 2022 for leasing Yangon's port from a military firm for $3 million a year. The Myanmar Chemical and Machinery Company and its owner, Aung Hlaing Oo, and Suntac Technologies owner Sit Taing Aung were sanctioned later that year for producing arms, including tanks and mortars. A third Myanmar national, Tin Latt Min – who the US previously described as owning 'various companies that are closely related to the regime' – was also removed from the sanctions list. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump sent a letter to junta chief Min Aung Hlaing earlier this month, one among a raft of missives despatched to foreign leaders during his global tariff blitz. The letter – believed to be Washington's first public recognition of the junta's rule since the coup – threatened Myanmar with a 40 percent levy unless a trade deal was struck. Min Aung Hlaing responded with a multi-page letter expressing his 'sincere appreciation' for Trump's message and praising his 'strong leadership'.
