SC rejects pleas of BCCI – Artifex.News https://artifexnews.net Stay Connected. Stay Informed. Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:15:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://artifexnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/cropped-Artifex-Round-32x32.png SC rejects pleas of BCCI – Artifex.News https://artifexnews.net 32 32 SC rejects pleas of BCCI, Byju’s to defer Committee of Creditors from meeting https://artifexnews.net/article68555152-ece/ Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:15:05 +0000 https://artifexnews.net/article68555152-ece/ Read More “SC rejects pleas of BCCI, Byju’s to defer Committee of Creditors from meeting” »

]]>

The Court had issued notice to Byju Raveendran, his company Think and Learn Private Limited and the BCCI.
| Photo Credit: ANI

The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 22, 2024) did not heed repeated requests by debt-ridden ed-tech firm Byju’s and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to defer the Committee of Creditors (CoC) from meeting.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had, on August 14, stayed the operation of a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision allowing Byju’s to pay a settlement amount of ₹158 crore to the BCCI.

Also Read: How India’s Byju’s went from startup star to facing insolvency

The order followed an appeal filed by U.S.-based lender Glas Trust Company Limited liability company (LLC), a financial creditor — which said it had a claim of ₹8,500 crore over the ed-tech firm.

On August 22, the Bench gave Glas Company, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, time to respond to an affidavit filed by the opposite party.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for Byju’s, said the court must “balance equities” on its side too. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for BCCI, said “98% of the CoC was Mr. Divan’s client”.

Mr. Divan said his client had not constituted a CoC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who joined the hearing on the side of Mr. Divan, said the stay order on August 14 was itself a result of the court’s prima facie findings leaning in favour of Glas.

The NCLAT decision on August 2 allowing the settlement, was based on the reasoning that BCCI would not accept any tainted money. The amount of ₹158 crore was offered by Riju Raveendran, Byju’s brother. It was generated in India, for which income tax was paid. The money was received through banking channels.

Glas had argued that the “drill of the law” was not followed in the settlement between Byju’s and the BCCI. The U.S. lender had said, as a major financial creditor, it should have gotten priority in repayments. Mr. Singhvi had described Glas’s appeal as a show of ego.

“Apart from an ego, he (Glas) has a claim of ₹8,500 crore,” the Chief Justice reacted.

The Court had issued notice to Byju Raveendran, his company Think and Learn Private Limited and the BCCI.



Source link

]]>