Byju’s opposed the BCCI’s plea on various grounds, including that the agreement between it and BCCI did not involve any “services” and only involved the transfer of certain rights.
Therefore, BCCI could not be viewed as an “operational creditor” who was entitled to file a CIRP application against Byju’s under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), it was argued.
Byju’s also asserted that BCCI had not proved that there was a default of a debt by the former. There were pre-existing disputes as well between the parties which would stand in the way of initiating CIRP, Byju’s said.
All these arguments were rejected by the NCLT in its July 16 order. Among other observations, the tribunal observed that there were emails between the parties which pointed towards the existence of a debt due from Byju’s to the BCCI.
“The Respondent herein (Think & Learn) has time and again acknowledged and duly planned a repayment schedule for the outstanding dues by sending the above mentioned emails; the condition of there being a ‘Debt’ and a ‘Default’ for the purposes of Section 9 of the IBC is held to be satisfied,” the NCLT said.
Source: Barandbench
