Byju's Insolvency: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On CoC's Impleadment In Plea To Remove GLAS Trust From It

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a challenge by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) against its exclusion from proceedings concerning a plea to remove GLAS Trust Company LLC from the CoC of Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd.

The challenge arises from the NCLAT's February 24, 2026, order concerning the CoC's impleadment in the proceedings initiated by former Byju's director Riju Ravindran.

The NCLAT held that while a CoC is not a juristic person like a company or statutory corporation, it can litigate in its own name for purposes of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. It agreed with NCLT Bengaluru's reasoning that the CoC was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the application seeking removal of GLAS Trust.

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran reserved the case for verdict of order and said, “We will pass an order."

Appearing for the Committee of Creditors, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal submitted that the CoC was directly affected by the relief sought in Ravindran's application and was therefore entitled to be impleaded. He said:

“The short point in the present appeal is, the party who is directly affected by relief sought in an application, is a necessary party to the application.”

He explained that Ravindran was seeking to remove one of the four members of the CoC and was also seeking consequential relief against decisions taken by the CoC.

“He filed an application... that one out of four members of the COC should be excluded from the COC.”

“Because he sought, consequentially, a relief that all the decisions of the COC, if you exclude that member, and all decisions of the COC since 2025 for the last two years, should be declared null and void.”, Sibal submitted. 

Sibal further told the Court that after receiving notice of the application, the CoC had moved an impleadment application because the interim and final reliefs sought would directly affect the functioning and decisions of the CoC.

He pointed out that the NCLT had initially rejected the CoC's request for impleadment, while the NCLAT subsequently held that the CoC could maintain such an application but still declined to treat it as a necessary or proper party to Ravindran's application.

Sibal submitted that Ravindran's application had already been heard and judgment had been reserved, but the CoC had not been heard despite the consequences that could follow from the relief sought.

For Riju Ravindran, Senior Advocate Rohan Thawani told the Bench that he had instructions not to contest the CoC's request for a hearing, particularly in view of the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court. He, however, sought a time-bound disposal of the proceedings.

“We have received instructions not to contest the appeal, because Your Lordships' interim orders are hurting us.”

Thawani submitted that the proceedings were affecting the company's assets and said the only request was that the CoC be allowed to participate in the pending application.

“Our only request is, let them be included in my application. Let them be heard, but please request the NCLT to dispose it in a time-bound manner.”

He also pointed out that the original arguments had already been completed and judgment had been reserved, and therefore reopening the entire matter could cause further delay.

The Bench considered the position that the CoC ought to be heard in the application in which its interests could be affected. The Court indicated that the matter could be taken back before the NCLT for hearing the CoC without requiring all the other parties to repeat arguments already concluded.

The Bench ultimately proceeded to reserve its verdict in the appeal.