Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Udaya Holla and Satish Parasaran, appearing for the investors, maintained that Byju’s and Think & Learn had violated its earlier undertaking to the NCLT.
They argued that apart from an undertaking not to proceed with the rights issue in question (which would further dilute the rights of existing investors), Byju’s had also been directed to disclose certain information regarding their financials, which was also not complied with.
Countering the allegation that the NCLT’s June 12 order was unreasoned, Holla argued that this interim order has to be read along with the earlier orders of the tribunal and not in an isolated manner. If all of the NCLT’s orders were read together, sufficient reasons would emerge, Holla said.
While pressing the investors’ case, Holla also touched upon the allegations of misconduct against Byju’s.
“We have stated (that there is) fraud, misappropriation and we said this issue of shares is an illegal act, calculated to oppress our rights…We have invested hard-earned money, they have taken it away,” Holla argued.
Supporting his submissions, Parasaran added that the petitioners were trying to project a false sense of urgency in their petition against the NCLT’s interim order of stay.
“NCLT only said pending further orders (there shall be stay). They kept (the main petition’s hearing) on July 4. They only said, in the meantime, don’t go ahead with the rights issue…On a demurrer, assume there is no reason (in the NCLT order). Still, the Supreme Court says such an order cannot be set aside, it is discretionary,” Parasaran said.
Source: Barandbench
