Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking CBI, ED, NIA Probe Into Byju's Insolvency

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against a single judge's order refusing to direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), and National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into alleged irregularities in the insolvency proceedings of Think and Learn Private Limited (Byju's).

A division bench of Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John held that the petitioners had already approached the Bengaluru police on the same allegations. The resulting investigation was subsequently stayed by the Karnataka High Court. The bench observed that any grievance regarding the stay order or the investigation had to be pursued before the Karnataka High Court.

“Whether stay granted ad interim or after hearing the parties, it doesn't matter, the petitioner still has liberty to file application before the High Court of Karnataka for seeking, vacating the interim order for disposing of the main petition or else he can approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for setting aside the order,” the court ruled. 

The petitioners, Voizzit Technology Pvt Ltd and Voizzit Information Technology LLC, had sought directions to the CBI, ED and NIA to investigate alleged large-scale fraud, diversion of assets and other irregularities connected with Byju's insolvency process. They claimed that companies and assets allegedly belonging to them had been wrongfully alienated. According to them, this caused substantial financial loss.

The respondents included Byju's resolution professional Shailendra Ajmera, former interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava, GLAS Trust Company LLC authorised representative Sunil Thomas, and senior officials of Ernst & Young LLP. The petitioners alleged that they were involved in irregularities relating to the insolvency process.

The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on two grounds. First, the petitioners had earlier filed a public interest litigation before the Kerala High Court based on the same factual allegations.

They later withdrew that petition without seeking liberty to institute fresh proceedings. Second, the petitioners had already approached the High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru. An FIR was registered, and the Karnataka High Court subsequently stayed the investigation.

Before the Division Bench, the petitioners argued that the Single Judge erred in relying on the withdrawal of the earlier PIL. According to them, the earlier petition had been filed before the wrong forum. They contended that it had not been decided on merits and therefore could not bar a fresh petition.

The respondents opposed the appeal. They submitted that the petitioners themselves had lodged the complaint before the Bengaluru Police. The Karnataka High Court had already stayed the investigation arising from that complaint. Therefore, any request concerning the investigation or the stay order had to be made before that court and not before the Kerala High Court.

The Division Bench observed that although the earlier PIL had been withdrawn without a decision on merits, the more significant aspect of the case was that the dispute was already pending before the Karnataka High Court. The court noted that the representations submitted to the CBI and ED were based on the same allegations that formed the basis of the Bengaluru FIR.

The court further noted that the petitioners had first approached the Bengaluru Police in February 2025. The Karnataka High Court stayed the investigation in March 2025. The representations to the CBI and ED were submitted only on December 15, 2025. This was several months after the Karnataka High Court had already seized the matter.

“Such being the case, once again the petitioner cannot approach the High Court of Kerala for same relief,” the Division Bench observed.

Holding that it could not interfere in a matter already pending before the Karnataka High Court, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order.

It accordingly dismissed the appeal. However, it left it open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the Karnataka High Court.

For Appellants: Advocate V.R Manoharan

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, Advocates Sreelal N Warrier, Spl Public Prosecutor, Jaishankar V Nair, Standing Counsel, ED, B Ananthu, Cyriac Tom, Aysha Abraham, Aleena Anabelli A, Abdul Raoof Pallipath, Anil Prabha K and K Rajeswary