Back
Defers Byju's-Aakash Settlement Orders, Requires RP Consent and
The on Thursday declined to pass orders on the proposed settlement between —the parent company of ed-tech giant Byju's—and Limited (AESL) concerning Aakash's . Instead, the Tribunal directed the parties to first produce critical documentation, including the original , proof of payment, and a specific consent from the of Think & Learn. The matter has been listed for further compliance and orders on .
The decision came during the hearing of filed by the parties seeking to record a and dispose of the proceedings in terms of the settlement reached between them. However, the bench, comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada, found procedural gaps that needed to be addressed before any could be granted.
Court Demands Compliance Before Settlement Approval
The Tribunal observed that the application filed on behalf of the Resolution Professional of Think & Learn had been signed and submitted by his attorney pursuant to a "." This raised concerns about the authority of the person acting on the RP's behalf. The bench directed the parties to produce the original , proof of payment of on that document, and the attorney's identity proof. Additionally, the Tribunal sought a document explicitly showing that the joint application had been vetted and consented to by the RP himself.
These procedural requirements underscore the NCLT's insistence on ensuring that any compromise in a is validly authorised and transparent. The RP, as a key officer under the , must personally verify and consent to settlements that affect the and the interests of creditors.
Pending Litigation Adds Complexity
Another layer of complexity arose from the observation that several agreements, , appeals, and other proceedings were pending before superior forums. The Tribunal directed the RP to file an affidavit assuring that the settlement terms do not violate any orders passed in those pending proceedings or any existing contractual obligations. This requirement reflects the need to avoid conflicting judicial outcomes and to protect the integrity of the ongoing litigations.
The Tribunal also directed the filing of a against the other respondents. This step is standard in to clarify the status of claims and avoid future disputes.
Background: Byju's Insolvency and the Aakash
, which operates the Byju's brand, has been undergoing corporate insolvency resolution proceedings before the NCLT since . The company faced severe financial distress following a rapid expansion and mounting debts. , a major test-preparation chain acquired by Byju's in 2021, became a central asset in the insolvency process. The by Aakash—essentially an offer to existing shareholders to purchase additional shares—became a point of contention, leading to the present settlement negotiations.
The sought to resolve disputes surrounding the and potentially restructure the relationship between Think & Learn and Aakash. However, the NCLT's insistence on procedural compliance indicates that the Tribunal is not willing to rubber-stamp any settlement without ensuring that all legal formalities are met, particularly concerning the RP's role and the pending litigations.
Legal Analysis: RP's Role and Settlement Under the IBC
The case highlights the critical function of the Resolution Professional in the insolvency resolution process. Under the IBC, the RP is responsible for managing the affairs of the corporate debtor and ensuring that any compromise or arrangement with creditors and stakeholders is in the best interests of the estate. The requirement for the RP's personal consent to the joint application reinforces the principle that settlements must be approved by the officer who has the statutory duty to protect the debtor's assets.
Furthermore, the demand for an original and proof demonstrates the NCLT's adherence to procedural rigour. Courts and tribunals often insist on strict compliance with documentary evidence to avoid fraudulent or unauthorised acts. The presence of pending appeals before higher forums adds another layer of scrutiny, as the settlement must not contradict or undermine orders passed by superior courts.
Implications for the Parties and the Insolvency Process
For Think & Learn and its stakeholders, the deferral means a longer wait for a resolution. The settlement, if approved, could pave the way for a more orderly restructuring and potentially revive the company's prospects. For , the clarity on the is essential for its own growth plans and for investor confidence.
The case also sends a message to other parties in insolvency proceedings: the NCLT will not expedite settlements without full compliance with legal and procedural requirements. This may lead to more careful documentation and coordination between RPs and their legal teams.
Conclusion
The 's decision to defer orders on the Byju's-Aakash settlement serves as a reminder that even consensual resolutions in insolvency cases require rigorous procedural compliance. The next hearing on , will determine whether the parties can satisfy the Tribunal's demands. Until then, the fate of the settlement—and the future of Byju's and Aakash's intertwined businesses—remains uncertain.
