The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Wednesday informed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that it has reached a settlement with Byju’s regarding the repayment of over Rs 158 crore in dues related to sponsorship rights.

The NCLAT’s Chennai bench was notified that Riju Raveendran, the brother of Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran, has already paid Rs 50 crore. An additional Rs 25 crore is slated for payment on Thursday, with the remaining Rs 83 crore to be cleared by August 8.

However, the settlement faces opposition from a US-based financial creditor, Glas Trust, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The creditor alleges that the repayment is tainted and funded with misappropriated money, citing findings from a US court that Byju and Riju conspired to siphon over Rs 500 crore.

BCCI’s counsel and senior advocate Harish Salve assured the tribunal that the cricket body would never accept tainted funds. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the BCCI, dismissed the creditor’s concerns as assumptions.

The financial creditors have urged the NCLAT to direct Byju’s to file an undertaking that the money being paid to the BCCI is not from Byju Raveendran. In response, Raveendran’s counsel sought assurances that the insolvency process against Byju’s would not interfere with the proposed settlement.

Meanwhile, interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava overseeing the insolvency proceedings reported non-cooperation from Byju’s, citing lack of access to company data and closure of coaching centers.

The NCLAT has adjourned the hearing till August 1 and asked Byju’s to file an affidavit, clarifying that the money owed to financial creditors will not be used to pay operational creditors like the BCCI.

The BCCI had filed an insolvency plea against Think and Learn, Byju’s parent company, over unpaid sponsorship dues. The NCLT, Bengaluru, admitted the plea on July 16, which Raveendran subsequently challenged at the NCLAT, Chennai, and the Karnataka High Court. The high court, however, on Tuesday, dismissed the case, citing that the NCLAT would be addressing the appeal.