Byju Raveendran continuously misleading court: BCCI tells Karnataka High Court

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on Friday told the Karnataka High Court that co-founder of edtech firm Byju’s, Byju Raveendran, had been “continuously misleading” the Court on the issue of its insolvency proceedings..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for BCCI, told Justice SR Krishna Kumar that Raveendran was desperate to get a stay on the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for Byju’s parent company Think and Learn.Mehta said that Raveendran was, therefore, “troubling the Court morning and evening,” in total disregard for the statutory timelines of insolvency proceedings that were triggered by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for Think and Learn on July 16..On July 25, Raveendran had filed a fresh writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking that the insolvency proceedings be suspended and the formation of the CoC be stayed until its appeal challenging the NCLT order was decided upon by the Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).Appearing for Raveendran, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had urged the Court on Thursday to hear the matter, saying that the CoC was likely to be constituted by August 2. If, in the meanwhile, the NCLAT bench did not hear the appeal, the petitioner will be left remediless, he said..On Friday, Singhvi denied that Raveendran was misleading the Court. He reiterated that he had been forced to approach the High Court because though the NCLAT had posted Byju’s appeal for hearing on July 29, the judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma had hinted at the time that he might recuse from hearing the appeal.Mehta, however, said he had brought with him the list of dates as per the statutory timeline for the insolvency proceedings and the CoC was not going to be formed “today or tomorrow.”.The Court then said that from what it had understood, the CoC cannot be formed before July 31. So, the matter can be posted for hearing on July 30, a day after the scheduled hearing at NCLAT Chennai, the Court said..While all parties agreed to this suggestion, Mehta said that the Court must remember that Raveendran had been misleading and troubling the Court.“I would like to show the court how the petitioner has been misleading the Court. Your Lordship may also remember the conduct of this petitioner, who is troubling this Court by coming morning and evening every time,” Mehta said..Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi also appeared in the matter and told the Court that he was appearing for a third party in support of the BCCI. He said the party had also filed an intervention application before the NCLAT saying Byju’s should not be heard.Rohatgi too said that Raveendran was filing multiple cases in the same matter. “He has gone to the NCLAT thrice, to the High Court twice. He even went to Justice Bhushan (NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan) in New Delhi saying that NCLAT Chennai might recuse and seeking a transfer,” Rohatgi said..The Court said that in the past one and a half month, it had heard petitions filed by Raveendran and Byju’s “atleast three or four times.” “I am not saying you can’t come, but I am saying that I remember you,” Justice Kumar said..Singhvi, however, said that he was forced to approach the High Court following the NCLAT’s reaction on the previous hearing.“What else am I supposed to do when the NCLAT says who is the High Court to order us?” the Senior Counsel said.Singhvi also said that the Court must keep in mind that it was not its object to make a solvent company insolvent..Who is High Court to order us when to list a matter? NCLAT Chennai Bench.Justice Kumar then decided to adjourn the hearing on Raveendran’s plea to July 30, to see if the NCLAT member was indeed recusing from the hearing..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.