Byju Raveendran filed a caveat with the Supreme Court on August 3 against US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC, following an NCLAT order. The NCLAT had restored Byju’s board and overturned insolvency proceedings against the edtech company. This preemptive legal move aims to ensure a fair hearing before any potential challenge by Glas Trust.
NCLAT Chennai today has approved Byju’s settlement with BCCI, halting insolvency proceedings against the edtech firm. Repayment source was confirmed, safeguarding financial creditors’ interests. The tribunal criticized unnecessary complexity and stressed the importance of settlement. With this decision, insolvency proceedings against Think and Learn will cease, and the firm will not form a Company of Creditors.
The NCLAT Chennai expected to announce its decision on Byju Raveendran’s appeal against insolvency proceedings on August 2. This ruling will impact the disputed Rs.158 crore settlement between Raveendran and the BCCI. The case revolves around the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Byju’s parent company, and the source of funds used for the settlement is under scrutiny.
Today(on 31st July), The BCCI has resolved its cricket jersey sponsorship dispute with Byju’s, with Byju’s agreeing to repay over Rs.158 crores to the BCCI. However, a US-based financial creditor opposes the settlement, alleging illicit funds. The NCLAT is examining the situation. Byju’s insolvency proceedings are also ongoing, with various legal actions at different courts.
Byju Raveendran challenges Byju’s insolvency order, alleging bias by NCLAT. He seeks suspension of the order, stating Byju’s solvency and a plan to clear debts. BCCI opposes, claiming forum shopping. NCLAT is set to hear the appeal. Byju’s insolvency resulted from unpaid dues to BCCI, impacting its value and operations. Continued hearing on July 26.
The Supreme Court set to decide on the disqualification of Jaganmohan Rao as president of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) on July 23. Rao’s eligibility is in question due to his club’s lack of recognition and alleged irregularities in his election. Corruption allegations against him remain unaddressed by the current HCA leadership.
Today(on 28th May), The Delhi High Court rejected a PIL seeking BCCI compensation for IPL security provided by Delhi Police, affirming the State’s responsibility for expense recovery. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on fiscal matters, emphasizing the executive’s role in financial affairs.
The BCCI is seeking Supreme Court clarification on whether the sale of media rights is subject to service tax categorization as ‘franchise services’. This follows a directive from the Bombay High Court. The disputed amount totals around Rs 250 crore. The Supreme Court’s verdict will have significant implications for the taxation of media rights in Indian cricket.
The BCCI has indeed sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on whether its sale or grant of media rights could be classified as taxable “franchise services” and thus subject to service tax. This move suggests that the BCCI is seeking legal clarity on the tax implications of its activities related to media rights. The […]
![[Byju's Insolvency Case] Resolution Professional (RP) Are Creating 'Chaos': Creditor To NCLT](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-44.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
![[Haider Ali vs. BCCI] Delhi HC Rejects PIL for BCCI Compensation to Delhi Police for IPL Security](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/BCCI-IPL.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
