Appearing for the investors, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla argued that since the single judge had declined to order any status quo, shareholders’ rights may be diluted if Byju’s goes ahead with its contentious rights issue before the NCLT decides on the matter.
Holla added that between July 2 and July 3, Byju’s had already allotted some shares.
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan represented Byju’s and argued that there was no difficulty for the company to maintain the status quo as on today. He also reiterated that Byju’s has not violated any undertaking, contrary to the investor’s claims.
Meanwhile, Holla expressed concern that some shares have already been allotted since the July 2 single-judge order. Byju’s cannot claim equity on anything done since July 2 and all such actions should be subject to the NCLT’s final decision, Holla argued.
Raghavan’s response also included a note of protest against the manner in which allegations against Byju’s have been made and reported.
“Everything that has happened during the pendency of a company petition is always subject to final order. Where is the question? It can’t be, that all these observations are taken from your Lordship and shown to the NCLT, saying ‘Look at what the Hon’ble Chief Justice sitting in Division Bench has said.’ This has become problematic. And tomorrow, this is published in the newspaper as headlines. Everything that orally happens is also published. In this case, one observation was made by an NCLT member yesterday, it was published in headlines yesterday!”
Source: Barandbench
