The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Byju Raveendran challenging a NCLAT order that required the settlement of the BCCI’s claim to be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan refused to interfere with the April 17 ruling of the NCLAT’s Chennai bench and asked senior advocate Navin Pahwa, appearing for Raveendran, to “proceed further” before the insolvency authorities.
The NCLAT, in its order, held that the CoC’s approval was mandatory for the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings that had been initiated by the cricket board over unpaid sponsorship dues. The tribunal had ruled that the settlement proposal must be evaluated in line with the legal framework governing withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The Supreme Court also noted that it had already rejected similar appeals filed earlier by both the BCCI and Byju’s co-founder Riju Raveendran in July, upholding the NCLAT’s view.
What happened at the hearing?
During Friday’s hearing, Justice Pardiwala questioned why the court should depart from its previous ruling. “What is wrong with the view taken by NCLAT? Once the CoC has been constituted, decisions have to be taken in accordance with the insolvency process,” the bench observed.
Pahwa argued that the earlier Supreme Court petition was filed before the CoC was formed and that the subsequent constitution of the creditor panel changed the nature of the proceedings. He further submitted that the BCCI’s claim had already been fully paid “from the petitioner’s own pocket.”
The bench, however, rejected the line of argument, stating, “The moment we accept your argument, we frustrate the entire process.”
Timeline of the dispute
The insolvency case stems from unpaid dues owed to the BCCI for a sponsorship agreement. On July 16, 2024, the BCCI moved insolvency proceedings against Think & Learn. A settlement was reached on July 31 and co-founder Riju Raveendran reportedly cleared the board’s outstanding claim.
While the NCLAT initially allowed the withdrawal of CIRP on August 2, the Supreme Court stayed that order on August 14. Later, on January 29, 2025, the NCLT ruled that the settlement be treated as a post-CoC development requiring creditor scrutiny, a decision upheld by NCLAT and now affirmed by the Supreme Court.
