NCLAT Chennai Judge recuses from Byju’s insolvency case citing conflict of interest – Education News

BYJU’s NCLAT Case: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench recused himself on Monday from hearing Byju Raveendran’s plea for an interim stay on the insolvency proceedings against Think and Learn, Byju’s parent company, reported PTI. 

Justice Sharma cited his previous representation of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as the reason for his recusal, deeming it inappropriate to handle the case.

“I reviewed the case papers and recognised that the BCCI stands to benefit. Therefore, I choose not to be involved. The Chairperson will determine the next hearing date,” Justice Sharma stated, reported Bar and Bench. 

ICAI CA Foundation Result Highlights: Results Out! Check at icai.nic.in, icai.org

NEET PG 2024 exam city intimation slip to release today at nbe.edu.in for August 11 test – Check how to download

Budget analysis for education: Job-creation, with a special focus on formalisation

CUET UG Result 2024 Highlights: CUET UG result to come out soon at exams.nta.ac.in/CUET-UG

During the brief hearing, Raveendran’s counsel expressed willingness to settle the dues through Riju Raveendran, Byju’s brother and a Think and Learn promoter. Despite this, Justice Sharma remained firm on not hearing the case.

Subsequently, Raveendran approached NCLAT Delhi, where he was instructed to request the Principal bench for a new hearing schedule. His lawyers are now set to request an immediate listing before a different bench.

Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, supported by a team of advocates including Waseem Pangarkar and Nadiya Sarguroh, represented Byju Raveendran. Advocates Vimal Kirtisingh and Ashwini Vaidialingam appeared for Raveendran and BCCI respectively.

Previously, on July 16, the NCLT Bengaluru admitted BCCI’s insolvency plea against Think and Learn due to unpaid sponsorship dues of Rs 158 crore. This initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), with a resolution professional appointed to manage the company temporarily.

On July 23, Raveendran’s initial petition to the Karnataka High Court was withdrawn and moved to NCLAT, prompting Justice Sharma to critique the approach. Following this, Raveendran returned to the Karnataka High Court on July 25, seeking to stay the formation of a Creditors’ Committee and the NCLT order until NCLAT’s final decision. BCCI opposed, accusing Raveendran of forum shopping.

The Karnataka High Court adjourned the plea to July 30, pending Justice Sharma’s expected recusal, which he confirmed on July 29. The case will now be assigned to a new bench by the NCLAT Chairperson.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}