Supreme Court Directs Impleadment Of CoC In Plea To Remove GLAS Trust From Byju's CoC
The Supreme Court has recently directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd. to be impleaded in proceedings concerning a plea by suspended director Riju Ravindran seeking removal of GLAS Trust Company LLC from the CoC.
A division bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran taking into account the consent of the parties, directed that IA No. 466 of 2025, which was reserved for orders on Riju Ravindran's plea concerning the removal of GLAS Trust from the CoC, be listed before the NCLT Bengaluru within two weeks with the CoC impleaded and heard.
The Court also set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) February 24, 2026 order and the NCLT's August 26, 2025 order, holding that this was necessary to facilitate the CoC's impleadment and hearing in the proceedings.
"On consent of all parties, we direct that IA No.466 of 2025, which is reserved for orders, be placed on board of the NCLT on any date within two weeks from today and the appellant CoC be impleaded therein. The appellant may also be heard expeditiously, and we direct the NCLT to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. To facilitate such impleadment and hearing, we set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT. We also set aside the order of the NCLT in IA No.495 of 2025 in Company Petition (IB) No.149 of 2023 dated 26.08.2025.", the Court directed.
The dispute arose during Think & Learn's CIRP after the Resolution Professional removed GLAS Trust, which held a 99.41% voting share, and Aditya Birla Capital from the CoC on August 31, 2024.
The NCLT Bengaluru restored both to the CoC on January 29, 2025. Ravindran subsequently filed IA No. 466 of 2025 seeking GLAS's removal and a declaration that CoC decisions taken with GLAS as a member were nullities.
The NCLAT on September 26, 2025, when it directed the NCLT “not to pronounce any final orders/Judgement in IA 466 of 2025,” while permitting the hearing in that application to continue
The CoC then filed IA No. 495 of 2025 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code read with Rule 11 NCLT Rules seeking impleadment.
On August 26, 2025, the tribunal dismissed the CoC's impleadment plea, holding that the CoC had no separate existence apart from the Resolution Professional and was neither a necessary nor proper party.
The NCLAT upheld the dismissal, observing that although a CoC is not a juristic person in the strict sense, it can litigate in its own name for IBC-related matters.
However, it held that where the eligibility of an individual creditor is challenged, the CoC was “neither a necessary party, not even a proper party” and therefore need not be impleaded.
The Supreme Court has now set aside both orders and directed the NCLT to implead and hear the CoC in IA No. 466 of 2025 and dispose of the matter expeditiously.
For Appellant: Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocates, Prachi Johri, AOR, Advocates Sachin Jain, Himanshu Sharma, Saksham Dhingra, Smriti Nair, Suditi Batra
For Respondent: Senior Advocates Dhruv Mehta, Kapil Sibal, Kmnp Law, AOR, Advocates Rohan Thawani, V. Shyamohan, Sradhaxna Mudrika, Anshika Bajpai, Pooja Mahajan, Arveena Sharma, Ichchha Kalash, Sparsh Jain, Avinash B. Amarnath, AOR, Siddhant Grover, M/s Khaitan & Co., AOR