Byju's Insolvency : Supreme Court Dismisses BCCI, Riju Ravindran Appeals Against NCLT Mandating CoC Nod To Withdraw CIRP

The Supreme Court today(July 21) dismissed civil appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Ravindran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment holding that the application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (the company running Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal and Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for Riju Ravindran, the suspended director and promoter of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for BCCI.

The appeal has been filed against the NCLAT's 17 April 2025 judgment, which had dismissed appeals filed by Riju Ravindran and BCCI.

The appeals were against the NCLT Bengaluru's direction that the BCCI's application to withdraw the insolvency process against the company must be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 30A(1)(b) of the IBBI Regulations.

Ravindran and BCCI challenged this, arguing that the withdrawal application was submitted before the CoC was formed and therefore did not require CoC approval. However, the NCLAT held that Form FA (the prescribed form for filing withdrawal application), was filed on 14 November 2024, after the CoC was constituted on 21 August 2024, and that CoC approval was mandatory.

Byju's faced insolvency proceedings after defaulting on payments to BCCI for a jersey sponsorship deal. The CIRP started on 16 July 2024 on BCCI's Section 9 petition.

After a settlement between Byju's and BCCI, the NCLAT set aside the CIRP on 2 August 2024, but the Supreme Court stayed that order on 14 August 2024 on an appeal filed by GLAS Trust, another creditor of Byju's, and directed that Rs. 158 crore received in the settlement be kept in escrow.

On 23 October 2024, the Supreme Court allowed GLAS Trust's appeal, reinstating the CIRP and allowing the parties to seek withdrawal under the legal framework. The Court noted that the CoC had already been constituted.

BCCI asked the IRP to file the withdrawal application on 11 November 2024, which was done on 14 November 2024. Objections were filed by GLAS Trust and Aditya Birla Finance. Riju Ravindran also filed an application to be made a party in the main case.

On 10 February 2025, the NCLT held that since the CoC had been constituted on 21 August 2024, the withdrawal application must be placed before the CoC as per Regulation 30A(1)(b). This was challenged before the NCLAT.

Appellants Riju Ravindran and BCCI argued that the settlement was completed and Form FA was submitted on 16 August 2024, before the CoC was formed, so Regulation 30A(1)(a) applied and CoC approval was not needed. They also said the IRP should have filed Form FA within three days, as per Regulation 30A(3).

GLAS Trust countered that the CoC was constituted on 21 August 2024 and Form FA was actually filed on 14 November 2024, so Regulation 30A(1)(b) applied. It also noted that BCCI had told the IRP to wait until the Supreme Court's decision on 23 October 2024.

The NCLAT rejected the appellants' contentions and held that since Form FA was filed on 14 November 2024, after the CoC's constitution on 21 August 2024, the provisions of Section 12A and Regulation 30A(1)(b) would apply. It also held that the IRP could not be blamed for delay in filing Form FA, as BCCI had itself asked the IRP to wait until the Supreme Court's decision.

Case Details:  BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA|C.A. No. 6959-6960/2025 Diary No. 23834 / 2025

 RIJU RAVINDRAN Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA|C.A. No. 6613/2025 Diary No. 25368 / 2025

 RIJU RAVINDRAN Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA|Diary No. 26887 / 2025