Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench on Monday recused from hearing a plea filed by Byju Raveendran seeking an interim stay on the insolvency proceedings against Think and Learn, the parent company of the edtech firm Byju’s.
Justice Sharma said he had appeared for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) several times as a lawyer and, therefore, did not think it appropriate to hear the matter.
“I went through the entire case papers and realised that ultimately, the beneficiary is going to be BCCI. So, I do not want to get involved with this. I will be refusing to hear the matter. It will go to the Chairperson and he will decide on the next date,” Justice Sharma said.
During the brief hearing, Raveendran's counsel also said that he was willing to "pay the entire amount due through Riju Raveendran," his brother, who is also a promoter at Think and Learn.
The judicial member, however, said that even if Raveendran intended to argue the matter on merits, he was not inclined to hear it.
Raveendran then mentioned the matter before the NCLAT Delhi and was asked to approach the Registry at the Principal bench for constitution of a new bench and the next date of hearing.
Raveendran’s lawyers will now write to the NCLAT Registry seeking listing of the matter tomorrow, before another bench.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, briefed by Advocates Waseem Pangarkar, Nadiya Sarguroh, Yashowardhan Dixit, Gargi Patil, Aditi Tiwari, Allan David and Yashita Bharadwaj, Swapnil Srivastava, and Jayesh Srivastava for MZM Legal LLP, appeared for Byju Raveendran.
Advocate Vimal Kirtisingh appeared for Raveendran before NCLAT Delhi.
Advocate Ashwini Vaidialingam appeared for BCCI.
On July 16, the NCLT Bengaluru had admitted an insolvency plea filed by BCCI against Think and Learn. BCCI had filed the insolvency plea over unpaid dues related to sponsorship rights worth ₹158 crore.
By admitting BCCI’s plea, the NCLT triggered the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for Think and Learn. As mandated under the IBC, NCLT then appointed a resolution professional to manage all affairs of the company in the interim.
Incidentally, on July 23, when Raveendran had moved the NCLAT with the present petition seeking an urgent hearing, the judicial member had questioned why Raveendran had chosen to go to the Karnataka High Court first and then withdrawn the petition from the High Court and approached the Appellate Tribunal as an afterthought.
Justice Sharma had also said at the time that he really deprecated the practice (of Raveendran having moved the High Court first) and asked what the petitioner would do if he “dismissed the IA on the first day itself,” or, if he “recused from the hearing?”
This exchange had led Raveendran to move the Karnataka High Court again on July 25. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Raveendran, had urged the High Court to grant stay the formation of a Company of Creditors and suspend the NCLT order until the matter was heard and decided finally by the NCLAT.
He had also reportedly moved the NCLAT, Delhi in the meanwhile, seeking that the matter be transferred out of the tribunal’s Chennai bench since the judicial member seemed likely to recuse from the hearing.
BCCI, however, had opposed the petition and said that Raveendran was desperate and was resorting to forum hunting.
The High Court had then decided to adjourn the hearing on Raveendran’s plea to July 30, to see if the NCLAT member would indeed recuse from the hearing.