Today(on 31st July),The BCCI has announced a settlement with Byju’s regarding its cricket jersey sponsorship deals, involving the repayment of over Rs.158 crores. The agreement was reported to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 31st July), The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has announced a significant development regarding its cricket jersey sponsorship deals with Byju’s. The BCCI informed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that an agreement had been reached with Byju’s for the repayment of over Rs158 crores.
Settlement Details and Payments
During the hearing, it was disclosed that Riju Raveendran, brother of Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran, had already paid Rs.50 crores. An additional Rs.25 crores is expected to be paid by tomorrow, with the remaining Rs.83 crores due by August 8. This payment plan was presented to the NCLAT Chennai Bench.
Opposition from Financial Creditors
However, this settlement faced opposition from a US-based financial creditor, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The creditor claimed that the repayment was “tainted” and funded with stolen money. Rohatgi stated that Byju and Riju Raveendran conspired to siphon over Rs.500 crores, as per findings from a US court.
“Byju Raveendran has reportedly fled to Dubai amidst his financial troubles.”
-Rohatgi argued.
He added-
“And now the debtor is proposing to repay the Rs.158 crores in dues. It is our money that has been withdrawn by these individuals.”
NCLAT’s Inquiry
The NCLAT questioned Rohatgi, asking-
“Are you assuming that this money is part of your $533 million?”
to which Rohatgi confirmed-
“Yes. Where is this money coming from? Has it been withdrawn from an official bank account? Mr. Byju is a fugitive from justice.”
BCCI’s Stance on the Settlement
Representing the BCCI, Senior Advocate Harish Salve assured the tribunal that the cricket control authority would never accept any tainted money.
ALSO READ: BCCI Seeks Supreme Court Verdict on IPL Media Rights Taxability Issue
“BCCI will never tolerate any money that has been received surreptitiously.”
-Salve emphasized.
The NCLAT noted the creditors’ arguments-
“They (creditors) argued before me not to trust Riju Raveendran. Then they presented the US order of prohibitory injunction regarding the use of that $533 million.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the BCCI, described the creditor’s concerns as assumptions.
“Assumptions such as ‘Mr. Byju must be a very bad person and the money might be stolen or misappropriated’ are not supported by evidence.”
-Mehta said.
Creditors’ Request for Assurance
Financial creditors urged the NCLAT to direct Byju’s to file an undertaking confirming that the money being paid to BCCI is not Byju Raveendran’s. In response, Byju Raveendran’s counsel sought assurance that the insolvency process against Byju’s would not interfere with the proposed settlement.
“We shouldn’t be providing an undertaking only for the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to be formed the next day without any assurance.”
-Byju Raveendran’s counsel argued.
The interim resolution professional (IRP) appointed to oversee Byju’s insolvency proceedings expressed frustration over the company’s lack of cooperation.
“It has been 16 days, and they have not granted us any access. The coaching centers are closed. I managed to find two laptops, but all the data had been deleted.”
– the IRP reported.
Despite these concerns, the IRP assured that no Committee of Creditors (CoC) would be formed for now. The NCLAT took this submission on record and adjourned the hearing until tomorrow (August 1). The tribunal also asked Byju’s to file an affidavit or undertaking clarifying that money due to financial creditors would not be used to pay operational creditors, such as the BCCI.
ALSO READ: [Haider Ali vs. BCCI] Delhi HC Rejects PIL for BCCI Compensation to Delhi Police for IPL Security
Background of Insolvency Proceedings
On July 16, the NCLT, Bengaluru, admitted an insolvency plea filed by the BCCI against Think and Learn Private Limited, the parent company of Byju’s, over unpaid dues related to sponsorship rights worth Rs.158 crores. Byju Raveendran challenged this order on July 23, filing an appeal with the NCLAT Chennai.
Following this, Raveendran filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court on July 25, seeking suspension of insolvency proceedings and a stay on the formation of the CoC until the NCLAT Chennai Bench decided on his appeal. The High Court was informed that a judicial member of the NCLAT Chennai, who had previously represented the BCCI, may recuse from hearing the matter.
On July 29, the judicial member recused himself from the case, leading to the High Court disposing of the writ petition on July 30. It was confirmed that the NCLAT had already constituted a special Bench to hear the case.