Latest news with #FormFA
Hans India
7 days ago
- Business
- Hans India
No relief for BCCI in Byju's insolvency battle
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order rejecting the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings initiated against the embattled edtech company. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the joint appeals challenging the April 17 decision of the Chennai bench of NCLAT, which had affirmed the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru. The NCLT had on February 10 directed that the settlement proposal submitted by BCCI and Raveendran be placed before the newly constituted Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Byju's parent entity, Think & Learn Pvt the heart of the dispute was whether the withdrawal application for insolvency under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was filed before or after the formation of the CoC. Section 12A provides that withdrawal of insolvency requires the consent of 90% of the CoC if filed after the committee's constitution. BCCI and Raveendran had argued that the application — submitted via Form FA — was made before the CoC's formation and thus did not require such approval, invoking Regulation 30A(1)(a) of the IBBI regulations. However, the NCLAT noted that Form FA was submitted on November 14, 2024 — after the CoC was formed — making the application subject to the requirements of Section 12A and Regulation 30A(1)(b), thereby necessitating 90% creditor approval. The tribunal rejected the claim that the delay was caused by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), holding that the statutory timelines had already lapsed. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was triggered on July 16, 2024, based on BCCI's Rs 158.9 crore operational creditor claim arising out of a 2019 team sponsorship deal. A settlement between the two parties was later reached, prompting Raveendran to seek withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings.
India Today
7 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's and BCCI pleas against insolvency withdrawal
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April thoughts on the verdict, the counsel representing Byju's founders expressed disappointment. 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 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 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 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 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' 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 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 a settlement arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached 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 was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme 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 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 contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Supreme Court rejects BCCI, Riju Raveendran plea in Byju's settlement case
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April 17. BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal, 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. A two-member Chennai bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of 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 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 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 contended Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju's. However, 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 CoC then Section 12A which mandates the approval of such application for withdrawal by 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. 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 appointed also by the NCLT in this matter. Later, a settlement was 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). The 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.
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC junks BCCI, Riju Raveendran's plea on settlement for Byju's
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals from the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran. They sought to halt insolvency proceedings against Byju's. The court upheld the NCLAT verdict. This relates to a dispute over settlement offers and the role of the Committee of Creditors. The case involves a USD 1.2 billion debt. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) verdict on April and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal , 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.A two-member Chennai bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's BCCI and Raveendran contended 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 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 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 BCCI and Byju's contended Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju' 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 CoC then Section 12A which mandates the approval of such application for withdrawal by 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 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 appointed also by the NCLT in this a settlement was arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached 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 was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme 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).The 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 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 contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.
News18
21-07-2025
- Business
- News18
SC junks BCCI, Riju Raveendrans plea on settlement for Byjus
Agency: New Delhi, Jul 21 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April 17. BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal, 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. A two-member Chennai bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of 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 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 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 contended Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju's. However, 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 CoC then Section 12A which mandates the approval of such application for withdrawal by 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. 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 appointed also by the NCLT in this matter. Later, a settlement was 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). The 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. PTI PKS AMK AMK view comments First Published: July 21, 2025, 15:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
