Mumbai: US-based Glas Trust LLC on Tuesday filed a fresh application before the Supreme Court against the resolution professional of edtech firm Byju’s for its removal from the committee of creditors.
Glas Trust alleged that its removal from the list of creditors has brought down its claims from 99% to zero. The US-based lender said it has claims of over ₹11,000 crores.
The lender was allegedly dropped from the list of CoC as certain documents were not provided to the resolution professional.
A bench led by chief justice DY Chandrachud agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday.
Glas Trust had moved the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 4 September in this regard. However, it did not get any relief since the matter was pending before the top court.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Glas Trust, said that on 19 August, the CoC was constituted under the IBC, and Srivastava verified and admitted Glas Trust’s claims. But it was later dropped from the list.
BCCI settlement
Glas Trust had earlier moved the Supreme Court challenging the settlement between Byju’s and its operational creditor Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) claiming that as a financial creditor its dues should have been settled before the cricket board.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the financial creditors have a primary claim on the assets of a bankrupt company, followed by operational creditors. India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) aims to balance the interests of both types of creditors to ensure a fair and transparent insolvency process for all parties involved.
Meanwhile, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has deferred its decision on a plea filed by Glas Trust seeking a stay on the committee of creditors’ meetings to be conducted in the Byju’s insolvency case.
On 11 September, Aditya Birla Finance, one of the creditors of Byju’s accused the interim resolution professional (IRP) of playing ‘fraud’ in the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process of the company. The lender alleged that it was wrongfully classified as an ‘operational creditor’.
