In A Blow To BYJU’S, NCLAT Says Creditors Have ‘Liberty’ To Decide On INR 158 Cr Settlement With BCCI

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has disposed of a petition filed by Riju Ravindran seeking to block lenders of troubled edtech startup BYJU’S from deciding on a INR 158 Cr settlement with the Board of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI).

This is a major blow to BYJU’S as its settlement proposal will now be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), comprising GLAS Trust and Aditya Birla Finance, which have been against the settlement from the beginning. 

The NCLAT was hearing a plea filed by Ravindran, former promoter of BYJU’S, against the order by the Bengaluru bench of NCLT, which had on February 10 directed the BCCI to withdraw its insolvency plea against BYJU’S and place it before the CoC for approval.

BYJU’S Fate Now In Hands Of Creditors

Siding with the NCLT order, the Chennai bench of the Appellate Tribunal NCLAT said yesterday that since the CoC had already been formed when the settlement was arrived at with the BCCI, the creditor’s committee is at liberty to accept or reject it.

“During the course of the proceedings before this Court, the CoC has been constituted. The parties are at liberty to invoke their remedies, to seek a withdrawal or settlement of claims, in compliance with the legal framework governing the withdrawal of CIRP,” said the court order.

This essentially means that BYJU’S is at the mercy of its creditors now to escape insolvency proceedings. It will need approval from GLAS Trust and Aditya Birla Finance for its proposed INR 158 Cr outside-the-court settlement with the BCCI.

GLAS Trust, a consortium of US lenders that gave a $1.2 Bn term loan to BYJU’S, has a voting share of 99.41% in the CoC based on its admitted claim of INR 11,432 Cr.

Once India’ most valuable tech startup, BYJU’S has been facing insolvency proceedings due to failure to pay dues worth INR 158.9 Cr to the BCCI over an IPL sponshorship deal.

In August 2024, the NCLAT halted the bankruptcy proceedings against BYJU’S and allowed the settlement arrived between the edtech firm and the BCCI. Back then, Riju Ravindran, brother of BYJU’S founder Byju Raveendran,  had offered to pay the BCCI out of his own pockets.

However, In October last year, the Supreme Court overturned the NCLAT’s ruling, effectively reinstating insolvency proceedijngs against BYJU’S. The appeal before the apex court was filed by GLAS Trust, which alleged that money offered by Riju Raveendran to pay dues owed to the BCCI was “tainted” and was a case of “round-tripping”. It conteded that the money should be first used to settle dues of the creditors.

It is to be noted that BYJU’S may also move the Supreme Court as a last resort against the latest NCLAT order.

BYJU’S Facing Full-On Meltdown, Mostly Self Inflicted

With BYJU’S grappling with a full-blown financial crisis in India, its US-based subsidiary BYJU’S Alpha, earlier this month, sued the edtech startup’s founder Byju Raveendran, his wife and cofounder Divya Gokulnath and advisor Anita Kishore for allegedly ‘misappropriating’ funds worth $533 Mn.

The suit alleged that the trio orchestrated and executed a lawless scheme to conceal and steal $533 Mn of loan proceeds.

The development came on the heels of a US insolvency court ruling in favour of the lenders of BYJU’S in connection with a case involving alleged fraudulent transfer of $533 Mn by the troubled edtech startup. 

Last year, a Nebraska-based businessman accused BYJU’S founder of trying to regain control of iBYJU’S-owned US company Epic! using loan money that he allegedly hid from investors.

Meanwhile, BYJU’S coaching arm Aakash Educational Services is also facing financial turmoil. In January 2025, the coaching giant informed the NCLT that it urgently needed funds to “survive and sustain its business”. Aakash is looking to amend its Article of Association to raise fresh capital. However, in its order last month, NCLT Bengaluru asked Aakash to hold the status quo on its shareholding till April 30, when the next hearing in the case is scheduled.