BYJU’S Insolvency: Riju Raveendran Seeks Inclusion In Case Deliberation

BYJU’S director Riju Raveendran has reportedly approached the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking his inclusion in the insolvency case deliberations involving the beleaguered startup, its lenders and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). 

According to a report by Livemint, Raveendran’s counsel urged the Tribunal to allow him to present his defence on the allegations made by BYJU’S investors that he misappropriated funds to pay the INR 158 Cr owed by the company to the BCCI.

However, the NCLT expressed reservations about accepting Raveendran’s plea, stating that determining the source of funds comes under the jurisdiction of income tax authorities and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

It is pertinent to note that the BCCI’s bankruptcy plea against BYJU’S led to the initiation of the insolvency proceedings against the edtech company. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) settled the dispute as BYJU’S cleared BCCI’s dues.

Earlier in August, Raveendran told the NCLAT that the money to pay the BCCI came from the sale of his shares of Think and Learn, the parent of BYJU’S, between 2015 and 2018. 

However, BYJU’S investors, including Glas Trust, Prosus, General Atlantic, Peak XV Partners, took the matter to the Supreme Court (SC) to revive the bankruptcy proceedings. They argued that Raveendran and BYJU’S founder and CEO Byju Raveendran had filed for insolvency in the US and there was nothing on record to show that they had any money.

In response, the SC deemed the investor claims to be more severe than that of the BCCI and restarted the insolvency proceedings. 

Shortly after that, the BCCI approached the NCLT to take back its insolvency proceeding in November. However, Glas Trust challenged the maintainability of BCCI’s insolvency withdrawal application during the hearing today. 

As per a report by ET, the consortium of the company’s US-based lenders argued that the application should be rejected on the basis of a technicality. Glas Trust said that the application, which BYJU’S resolution professional (RP) claims the BCCI filed before the committee of creditors (CoC) was formed, should have been submitted by the interim resolution professional (IRP), not the RP. 

“The first submission is that the present application is not by an IRP. The person is claiming to be an RP. Therefore, the question of making an application under stage two, as mentioned by the Supreme Court or under the first provision of regulation 30A, does not arise,” Glas Trust’s counsel was quoted as saying.