Back
NCLAT Dismisses Byju Raveendran's Appeal Against Glas Trust's Majority Voting Share in BYJU'S CoC
The , on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran, suspended director and promoter of —the parent company of ed-tech giant BYJU'S—challenging the majority voting share held by in the company's . The bench, comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), held that the order under challenge was purely procedural and did not determine any substantive rights, rendering the appeal not maintainable.
A Procedural Snag or a Substantive Block?
The dispute centers on Glas Trust's role in the of Think & Learn. Glas Trust, acting as administrative and collateral agent for approximately 124 back-end lenders, had submitted a claim in Form C and reportedly commands over 99% of the voting share in the CoC. Byju Raveendran had filed an application—IA No. 490 of 2026—before the , seeking directions to the to disclose the identities of these lenders and the dates of their authorizations to Glas Trust. He argued that only 78 of the 124 alleged creditors had provided authorizations and that there was no between Think & Learn and these back-end lenders.
When IA No. 490 came up for hearing on , the NCLT did not rule on the merits. Instead, it merely scheduled the application for further hearing on . It was this procedural listing order that Byju Raveendran appealed before the NCLAT.
The Battle of Earlier Applications
The appeal lands against a backdrop of ongoing litigation. In 2025, another suspended director and promoter, Riju Ravindran, had filed IA No. 466 of 2025 seeking Glas Trust's removal from the CoC. That application was stalled after the NCLAT, on , directed the Adjudicating Authority not to pass a final order. The subsequently, on , ordered the continuation of that . It is in this context that Byju Raveendran filed IA No. 490, raising substantially similar issues.
Arguments: Urgency vs. Procedural Hurdles
Appearing for Byju Raveendran, Senior Advocate argued that the entire claim made by Glas Trust required scrutiny as it went to the very of the claim. He contended that the matter was urgent because the RP was attempting to sell assets of the corporate debtor under . However, the RP's counsel, Senior Advocate , countered that there was no pleading before the NCLT regarding any such sale and that the issue did not form part of the appeal. He also pointed out that Glas Trust had filed its claim as early as , and questioned why Byju Raveendran was raising these objections only in 2026.
For Glas Trust, Senior Advocate submitted that the NCLT order was purely procedural—it merely fixed a date for hearing—and argued that Byju Raveendran could not be considered an entitled to maintain an appeal.
Court's Reasoning: No at Stake
The NCLAT bench agreed with the submissions of Glas Trust. The court observed that the
of
, did not decide any right of the parties, much less pose a threat to the appellant's substantive rights.
"The present order, which is impugned in this appeal, is only a
and no right of any of the parties, more particularly that of the appellant, is decided as to pose a threat to his
,"
the bench noted.
The appellate tribunal made it clear that it did not intend to pre-empt the NCLT's decision on the underlying issues. All contentions raised by Byju Raveendran were left open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider during the hearing scheduled on .
Key Observations
-
"We agree with the contention of the counsel for the Glas Trust."
— The bench upheld the argument that the order was procedural. -
"The present order, which is impugned in this appeal, is only a and no right of any of the parties, more particularly that of the appellant, is decided as to pose a threat to his ."
— The court's core reasoning for dismissing the appeal. -
"We do not propose to pre-empt a decision with any of our observations."
— The bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the dispute.
Decision and Implications
The NCLAT dismissed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 383 of 2026 as not maintainable, with no costs. All pending interlocutory applications were closed. The practical effect is that Byju Raveendran must now wait for the NCLT's hearing on , to press his arguments regarding Glas Trust's voting share and the validity of its claim. The ruling underscores the principle that appellate remedies are not available against purely procedural orders that do not adjudicate substantive rights, a key tenet in insolvency jurisprudence.
For the ongoing CIRP of Think & Learn, the decision means that the composition of the CoC and Glas Trust's dominant voting share remain undisturbed for now, but the underlying challenges are still alive and will be tested before the Adjudicating Authority.
