NCLT must take RP's decision into account: Edtech firm Byju's to NCLAT

During the hearing on Monday, Riju Raveendran's attorney told the appellate tribunal that Raveendran had paid Rs 158 crore from his own funds to settle the dispute with the BCCI

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) must always take a look at a resolution professional’s decision and approve or disapprove of the same, the counsel appearing for Byju’s told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday.

 

During the hearing on Monday, Riju Raveendran’s attorney told the appellate tribunal that Raveendran had paid ₹158 crore from his own funds to settle the dispute with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and therefore the money should be kept outside the scrutiny of its committee of lenders.

 

The appellate tribunal will again hear the case on March 21.

 

 

Riju, the younger brother of founder Byju Raveendran, had earlier told the appellate tribunal that the settlement with BCCI had been finalised before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was formed.

 

A committee of creditors is a group of financial creditors or lenders who represent a company in the insolvency process.

 

On February 10, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed BCCI to submit the ₹158 crore settlement plea before the CoC. If accepted, Byju’s could exit insolvency proceedings. However, lenders, which include US-based Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance, opposed this saying the settlement with the BCCI was 'tainted' money.

 

The BCCI and Byju’s had both opposed this, and argued that the settlement money was “clean”.

 

Riju had also challenged a January 29 order of the NCLT in which the tribunal had ordered disciplinary action against resolution professional (RP) Pankaj Srivastava and rejected his decision to exclude Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the edtech firm.

 

Both Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance were part of the CoC last year in August but were later axed from the reconstituted committee.

 

Aditya Birla Finance alleged that the RP had wrongfully classified it as an “operational creditor” instead of financial creditor or lender, while Glas Trust said it was wrongfully ousted from the CoC.