NCLAT Chennai Judicial Member Recuses From Byju's Insolvency Stay Plea Due To Conflict Of Interest

NCLAT Chennai Judicial Member Recuses From Byju's Insolvency Stay Plea Due To Conflict Of Interest

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

Justice Sharma cited his previous legal representation for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as a conflict of interest. “I reviewed the case papers and realized that BCCI would ultimately benefit from this matter. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to be involved,” Justice Sharma stated. He added that the case would be forwarded to the NCLAT Chairperson for reassignment and to decide on the next date of hearing.

During the brief hearing, Raveendran’s counsel proposed settling the entire amount due through Riju Raveendran, his brother, and a fellow promoter at Think and Learn. Despite this, Justice Sharma indicated his reluctance to hear the case, even on its merits.

Following the recusal, Raveendran addressed the NCLAT Delhi and was advised to contact the registry at the principal bench to arrange for a new bench and schedule the next hearing.

On July 16, the NCLT Bengaluru admitted an insolvency petition filed by BCCI against Think and Learn over unpaid sponsorship dues totaling ₹158 crores. This decision triggered the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a resolution professional was appointed to oversee the company's operations.

On July 23, when Raveendran sought an urgent hearing before the NCLAT, Justice Sharma questioned why Raveendran had initially approached the Karnataka High Court and later withdrawn the petition to seek relief from the Appellate Tribunal. Justice Sharma expressed concerns about forum shopping and questioned what Raveendran would do if the application was dismissed or if the judge recused himself.

In response to Justice Sharma’s comments, Raveendran returned to the Karnataka High Court on July 25. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested a stay on the formation of a committee of creditors and a suspension of the NCLT order until the NCLAT matter was resolved. BCCI opposed this request, accusing Raveendran of attempting to manipulate the forum selection process.

The Karnataka High Court has adjourned Raveendran’s plea to July 30 to determine whether the NCLAT Chennai bench will indeed recuse itself from the case.