Byju Raveendran Withdraws Contempt Plea Before Karnataka High Court Against Byju's Interim Resolution Professional Over CoC Meeting
Byju Raveendran and other suspended directors of Think & Learn, the parent company of ed-tech platform Byju's, have withdrawn their contempt petition against interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava before the Karnataka High Court.
The petition alleged that Srivastava wilfully disobeyed the High Court's October 2024 orders by calling for a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting on February 12, 2025, despite the interim restraint on further CoC meetings.
During the hearing, the division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice N.V Bhavani noted that the petition did not state that the CoC [Committee of Creditors] meeting was actually held or specify the date on which it was held.
Earlier, in the writ petition (W.P. No. 28827/2024) disposed of in 2024, the High Court had directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru, to consider and decide all pending applications in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think & Learn Private Limited-the parent company of Byju's. The court was then hearing a writ petition filed by Glas Trust Company LLC, a US-based financial creditor of the Company.
Glastrust had then sought a status quo on the CIRP and a direction restraining Respondent No. 1 from holding any further meetings of the allegedly unlawfully reconstituted Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the order in it's favour was extended again on December 4, 2024.
To recap, NCLT started bankruptcy proceedings against Think and Learn on July 16, 2024. The insolvency proceedings were triggered by a plea from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over unpaid dues amounting to Rs 158 crore. This decision came after BCCI's complaint about non-payment of sponsorship dues by the edtech company, which had previously adorned the Indian cricket team's jerseys with its logo.
An interim resolution professional [R1]was appointed whose roles included forming a committee of creditors (CoC) to address the company's financial obligations.
For further context in the current matter, the complainant had alleged that the accused had sent an email on 01.02.2025 to convene a CoC meeting with the agendas including the appointment of a permanent resolution professional abiding by the order of the apex court for transfer of settlement of funds to CoC.
Byju Raveendran, aa suspended director of the Corporate Debtor- Think & Learn, argued that he was directly aggrieved by the action of the accused.
“…We are the suspended directors/promoters of Think Learn Private Ltd. and a stakeholder in CIRP process. We became aware of the order passed by this court in 2024… We are not party to the writ. Glastrust[financial creditor] filed a writ petition…on 25th October, an interim order in the WP directing the respondent to refrain from proceeding with the CoC meeting scheduled for 25.10.2024… While the order was subsisting, respondent proceeds[by mail] to convene the meeting on February 12”, the counsel submitted today.
However, the High Court, after perusing the same, pointed out that in the aforesaid order, the resolution professional was not precluded from seeking permission from the NCLT, Bengaluru, to convene a CoC meeting for the purpose of authorizing payments towards salaries and other necessary expenses, as well as for complying with any directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
“When was the meeting held on 12th February. In which paragraph of the petition do you say that the meeting was convened”, the court enquired.
As a logical conclusion, the court noted that it has not been shown by the petitioner that no prior permission was obtained by R1-interim resolution professional from NCLT in violation of the interim order, before conducting the meeting, since the petitioners have not proved that a meeting has taken place.
The Court also perused the order dated 30.10.2024 and observed that while extending the interim order passed on 25.10.2024, it had expressly not precluded Respondent No. 1 from seeking permission from NCLAT to convene a CoC[Committee of Creditors] meeting solely to authorize payments, in compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court. It was not shown by the petitioner that Respondent No. 1 had convened such meeting, the court added.
At this stage, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn.