The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by Byju Raveendran, promoter of Think and Learn Private Limited, challenging an NCLAT order that requires the settlement of the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI) claim to be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal against the April 17 order of the NCLAT’s Chennai Bench, and asked senior advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for Raveendran, to “proceed further”.
The Court noted that it had already dismissed similar appeals filed earlier by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran (Byju’s co-founder and younger brother of Byju Raveendran) challenging the same NCLAT ruling.
Justice Pardiwala questioned the basis of the challenge, asking counsel what was wrong with the NCLAT’s view that the apex court’s earlier judgment — which held that a CoC formed during pending proceedings could examine withdrawal or settlement requests — would apply squarely to this case.
When Pahwa argued that the earlier petition was filed at a pre-CoC stage and the CoC was constituted only later, the bench disagreed.
“The moment we accept your argument, we frustrate the entire process,” the Court observed.
The insolvency dispute stems from unpaid sponsorship dues owed by Think and Learn Private Limited to the BCCI, which initiated insolvency proceedings on July 16, 2024.
A settlement was reached on July 31, 2024, and Riju Raveendran paid the BCCI’s entire claim.
On August 2, 2024, the NCLAT allowed the settlement and permitted withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, the Supreme Court stayed this order on August 14, 2024.
During the ongoing proceedings, the NCLT on January 29, 2025, treated the settlement as post-CoC and directed that the withdrawal application be placed before the CoC — a decision subsequently upheld by the NCLAT.
Before the Supreme Court, Raveendran argued that he personally paid the dues and that “the complexion of the dispute has now changed”. The bench, however, found no merit in the contention.
By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has effectively affirmed that CoC approval is mandatory for withdrawal of insolvency proceedings once the insolvency process has crossed the stage of CoC constitution.
