Supreme Court rejects BCCI and Riju Raveendran’s challenge to NCLAT ruling on Byju’s insolvency case. KK Venugopal slams the dismissal mid-argument as “arbitrary.”
New Delhi: Today, on July 21, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitions filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Riju Raveendran. These petitions were challenging a decision made by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai in April 2025.
The NCLAT had earlier refused to allow BCCI to withdraw its insolvency application against Byju’s parent company without first getting approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made it clear that they would not interfere with the NCLAT’s ruling. As a result, the pleas filed by BCCI and Riju Raveendran were dismissed.
Senior Advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal, who appeared on behalf of Riju Raveendran, was visibly upset with how the hearing was conducted. He strongly objected to the dismissal and told the Court,
“I am sorry but the matter is being dismissed arbitrarily. I am in the middle of my arguments. How can your lordships dismiss the case without even hearing me?”
Despite his protests, the Supreme Court Bench did not offer any response or comment.
The background of the case goes back to July 2024, when BCCI had filed insolvency proceedings against Byju’s before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). BCCI claimed that Byju’s owed them Rs 158.90 crore.
However, after both parties reached a settlement, BCCI wanted to withdraw its insolvency application. It submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in August 2024.
But things got complicated because the Committee of Creditors (CoC) was officially formed just a few days later, on August 21, 2024. And BCCI only submitted its formal withdrawal request before the NCLT in November 2024.
Since this was after the CoC was formed, the NCLT and later the NCLAT both held that BCCI would now require approval from at least 90% of the CoC members, as required under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The NCLAT also made a crucial clarification. It stated that under Regulation 30A, the “date of filing” is to be considered as the date when the withdrawal application is formally submitted to the NCLT, not when it is given to the IRP.
This clarification worked against BCCI, as their submission to NCLT happened after the CoC formation.
Meanwhile, Riju Raveendran also filed a separate plea, arguing that his application to be included in the case (impleadment application) was not heard properly.
But the NCLAT dismissed this plea as well, noting that he had been present during the hearings and had already made all his arguments.
Several prominent lawyers represented the parties in this high-profile legal battle. BCCI was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate CK Nandakumar.
They were supported by a team of advocates including R Sudhinder, Aditya Chaudhary, Bhavya Mohan, Aastha Trivedi, Anjali Kutiyal, Anushka Sharma, Bhuvan Kapoor and Karthik from Argus Partners.
Glas Trust, another party in the matter, was represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Krishnendu Datta, along with Advocates Prateek Kumar, Raveena Rai, Moha Paranjpe and Siddhant Grover from Khaitan & Co.
The Resolution Professional (RP) handling the insolvency case was represented by Senior Advocate Paramjit Patwalia.
Byju Raveendran, the founder of Byju’s, was represented by Senior Advocates Guru Krishnakumar and Haripriya Padmanabhan.
Other respondents were represented by Advocates Pooja Mahajan, Arveena Sharma, Ichchha Kalash, and Samridhi Sharmili from Chandiok & Mahajan.
CASE DETAILS:
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
Click Here to Read More Reports on Byju’s Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
