The Supreme Court has raised concerns over why ed-tech giant Byju's, currently facing a ₹15,000 crore debt, chose to settle its dues only with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The court questioned the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) decision to close insolvency proceedings against the company without fully considering the case.

The NCLAT had granted Byju’s relief on August 2 after it approved the company’s ₹158.9 crore settlement with the BCCI. This decision allowed Byju Raveendran, the founder, to regain control of the company. However, the relief was short-lived as the Supreme Court, on August 14, stayed the tribunal’s order following an appeal by Glas Trust Company LLC, a US-based creditor of Byju’s.

A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed its concerns over the selective settlement. “The company is in debt of ₹15,000 crore. Can one creditor (BCCI) walk away while the company owes so much to others?” the bench remarked, hinting at the possibility of sending the case back to the NCLAT for further review.

During the hearing, the court questioned why Byju’s chose to settle with the BCCI using personal assets, while the NCLAT accepted this without proper scrutiny. The Supreme Court had earlier instructed the BCCI to hold the settlement amount in a separate account pending further investigation.

Representing Glas Trust, senior advocate Shyam Divan criticized the NCLAT’s decision to halt the insolvency proceedings, calling the settlement payment to the BCCI "tainted." In response, advocates Abhishek Singhvi and NK Kaul, representing Byju’s, argued that the money came from Riju Raveendran, the brother of Byju Raveendran, and was paid from personal assets, not the company’s funds.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the BCCI, supported this claim, stating that the cricket board received its dues from personal assets, not company funds.

The dispute stems from Byju’s default on a ₹158.9 crore sponsorship fee owed to the BCCI as part of a 2019 team sponsorship agreement. While payments were made until mid-2022, the company subsequently failed to meet its financial obligations, triggering the legal battle.

The Supreme Court’s hearing on Glas Trust’s appeal is set to continue, as the US-based creditor has also challenged the interim resolution professional’s (IRP) decision to remove it from the committee of creditors. The firm argued that it held a 99.41% stake in Byju’s, which was reduced to zero by the IRP, leaving the remaining creditors with a 0.59% stake.

The case continues to unfold as the Supreme Court reviews the handling of Byju's financial obligations and the legitimacy of the NCLAT's decision to close the insolvency proceedings.