The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite the hearing on Glas Trust’s appeal against the NCLAT judgment that stayed insolvency proceedings against BYJU’s. This move comes after both BYJU’s and Glas Trust sought an early hearing.
The Supreme Court on September 6 agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the NCLAT, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU’s and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest.
Kaul said, “The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is.”
“I will get it listed as early as possible,” the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing.The issue at hand involves the removal of Glas Trust from the CoC by IRP Pankaj Srivastava. Glas Trust has challenged its removal and is also seeking the removal of Srivastava as the IRP.
Earlier, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had said that it cannot stop the committee of creditors (CoC) proceedings as the Supreme Court has allowed its constitution on August 21.
The matter pertains between Glas Trust Co, which represents a group of the troubled edtech firm Byju’s US lenders, and the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) for the parent company, Think & Learn Pvt Ltd. According to the bench, it cannot stop the committee of creditors (CoC) proceedings as the Supreme Court allowed its constitution on August 21.
The NCLT stated that the apex court has given the go-ahead for the formation and constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and for conducting the meeting, making it clear that the process cannot be halted. The bench mentioned that lenders could file a separate application if they wish to pursue further actions.