Byju's Insolvency: Supreme Court Continues NCLAT's No Final Order Direction In Plea To Remove GLAS Trust From CoC
Kirit Singhania
27 Feb 2026 2:59 PM IST
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Committee of Creditors challenging the NCLAT's decision upholding the rejection of its plea to implead itself in proceedings seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the CoC of Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court of India on Friday continued NCLAT's interim direction restraining the NCLT from passing final orders in the plea before NCLT Bengaluru seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the Committee of Creditors of ed-tech Byju's parent Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., while issuing notice on the CoC's appeal against rejection of its impleadment application.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued notice on the appeal and directed, “Court is directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The interim order earlier granted by NCLAT shall continue to operate till the next date of hearing.”
The interim order referred to was passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal 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
That protection lapsed after the NCLAT, by judgment dated February 24, 2026, dismissed the CoC's appeal and affirmed the NCLT's refusal to implead it
The dispute arises from the corporate insolvency resolution process of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd. During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional initially constituted a four-member CoC. On August 31, 2024, the RP reconstituted the CoC by removing GLAS Trust Company LLC, which held a 99.41 percent voting share, and Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. Both challenged their removal.
On January 29, 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal allowed their applications and restored them to the CoC .
Thereafter, suspended director Riju Raveendran filed an application seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the CoC and a declaration that all decisions taken by the CoC with GLAS as a member be treated as nullities. The CoC the moved an application seeking to implead itself in those proceedings. The NCLT dismissed that impleadment plea, holding that the CoC does not possess an independent juristic personality and is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The NCLAT upheld that view and dismissed the CoC's appeal
In its February 24 judgment, the NCLAT undertook a detailed examination of the legal character of a CoC. While observing that, on strict jurisprudential principles, a CoC is not a juristic person like a company or statutory corporation, it adopted a functional approach and held that for purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and issues arising within its framework, a CoC may litigate in its own name.
It nevertheless concluded that in proceedings where the eligibility of an individual creditor is under challenge, the CoC is “neither a necessary party, not even a proper party” and therefore did not require to be impleaded
At the outset of the hearing before the Supreme Court, Justice Pardiwala questioned the maintainability of the appeal, asking, “How CoC can be an appellant?”
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the CoC, responded that Section 3(23)(g) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code includes within the definition of “person” any entity established under a statute and that the CoC, being constituted under Section 21 of the Code, is entitled to maintain proceedings in its own name.
He further argued that the reliefs the ex-mangement's applications are in substance directed against the CoC itself, as the application seeks not only removal of GLAS Trust but also a declaration that all decisions taken by the CoC with GLAS as a member be treated as nullities.
Such prayers, he submitted, directly affect the composition and functioning of the CoC and could unsettle decisions taken during the CIRP, making its impleadment necessary.
Opposing the plea, Advocate Rohan Dhawan appearing for Riju Raveendran argued that the dispute concerns the eligibility of GLAS Trust as a financial creditor and that the CoC, being a collective body, cannot determine its own composition. It was submitted that the Resolution Professional is responsible for verifying claims and constituting the CoC and that the challenge is directed at GLAS Trust's status, not at the CoC as such. Even if GLAS is ultimately found ineligible, the issue can be adjudicated without the CoC being impleaded, it was contended.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for GLAS Trust, while senior counsel Dhruv Mehta represented the Resolution Professional. The matter will be heard further after completion of pleadings.