The Supreme Court on July 21, 2025, dismissed civil appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Ravindran, the suspended director of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the company behind Byju's), challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order that required Committee of Creditors (CoC) approval to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A division bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter. Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Guru Krishna Kumar represented Riju Ravindran, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the BCCI.
“The NCLAT rightly held that once the CoC is constituted, any withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) requires CoC’s 90% approval,” stated the Supreme Court in its decision.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Entire Appeal Fails If Legal Heirs of Deceased in Joint Decree Are Not Added in Time
Background of the Case
Byju’s insolvency proceedings began after it defaulted on payments to BCCI under a jersey sponsorship deal. The NCLT Bengaluru admitted BCCI’s petition under Section 9 of the IBC on July 16, 2024, initiating the CIRP.
Although a settlement was reached between Byju's and BCCI, another creditor, GLAS Trust, challenged the settlement, and the Supreme Court on August 14, 2024, stayed NCLAT’s earlier decision to close the CIRP.
“Rs. 158 crore received under the settlement shall be maintained in escrow,” directed the Supreme Court at that time.
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions BCI on Relaxing AIBE Fee for Poor Law Graduates
On October 23, 2024, the apex court reinstated the CIRP and allowed parties to seek withdrawal as per the legal framework. Notably, the CoC had already been constituted on August 21, 2024.
BCCI directed the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to file Form FA (withdrawal application) on November 11, 2024, which was filed on November 14, 2024. GLAS Trust and Aditya Birla Finance opposed this move.
BCCI and Riju Ravindran argued that since the settlement and submission of Form FA were initiated before the CoC's constitution, approval wasn’t needed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) of the IBBI Regulations.
Read also:- SC Criticises High Courts for Granting Undue Interim Relief in SARFAESI Cases
However, GLAS Trust pointed out that:
“Form FA was actually filed only after the CoC was constituted. Thus, Regulation 30A(1)(b), requiring CoC approval, must apply.”
On February 10, 2025, the NCLT ruled that because the CoC had been formed on August 21, 2024, the application for withdrawal needed CoC approval under Regulation 30A(1)(b).
The NCLAT affirmed this position on April 17, 2025, holding that the IRP was not at fault for any delay as BCCI had requested the IRP to wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict on October 23, 2024.
“Since Form FA was filed after the CoC's formation, provisions of Section 12A and Regulation 30A(1)(b) would govern the withdrawal,” ruled the NCLAT.
The Supreme Court upheld NCLAT’s findings, dismissing both appeals. It clarified that the timeline of Form FA’s actual filing and the CoC’s constitution were crucial in determining the applicable regulation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Warns Against Politicising Contempt Plea Against Mamata Banerjee
Case References:
- BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA | C.A. No. 6959-6960/2025 | Diary No. 23834/2025
- RIJU RAVINDRAN Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA | C.A. No. 6613/2025 | Diary No. 25368/2025
- RIJU RAVINDRAN Vs PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA | Diary No. 26887/2025