The Bengaluru bench of the national company law tribunal (NCLT) has directed the resolution professional (RP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (TLPL), the parent company of Byju’s, and the successful auction bidder to maintain status quo over a set of disputed assets, amid competing claims over their ownership.
The tribunal’s interim order came after the RP handling the insolvency proceedings of Byju’s K3 Education Pvt Ltd claimed that goods valued at about ₹150 crore had been auctioned for around ₹16 crore.
A bench comprising judicial member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and technical member Radhakrishna Sreepada said the ownership of the auctioned articles had not been conclusively established and that the assets needed to be preserved until supporting evidence was placed before the tribunal.
“Even if part of the auctioned articles actually belonged to TLPL, the ownership of rest of the articles remains in haze,” the tribunal observed.
It further held that preserving the existing position would not cause prejudice to the parties, while allowing the assets to be moved, disposed or otherwise dealt with could create a situation that might not subsequently be reversible.
The tribunal has not, however, cancelled the auction or ruled on the ultimate ownership of the assets.
Auction Buyer Made Party
NCLT also impleaded Comprint Tech Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd, which emerged as the successful bidder in the auction conducted on 14 August 2026, as a party to the proceedings.
Comprint has been directed to submit a detailed inventory of the assets it purchased, photographs of the goods, and the complete address where they are currently being stored. The information is to be furnished within one week of service of the application and the tribunal’s order.
The RP of TLPL and Comprint have been directed not to alter the status of the assets auctioned pursuant to the 2 August 2026 notice until the matter is taken up again.
The tribunal also directed TLPL’s RP to comply with an earlier order requiring disclosure of item-wise details of the assets, their valuation, the auction process, the method used to select the successful bidder and details of the account into which the sale proceeds were deposited.
Dispute over Ownership of Warehouse Assets
The dispute stems from separate insolvency proceedings involving two companies associated with Byju’s.
TLPL, which operated the Byju’s edtech business, entered the corporate insolvency resolution process in July 2024 following a petition by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) over unpaid sponsorship dues of about ₹159 crore.
Byju’s K3 Education, meanwhile, is facing a separate insolvency process following a Section 9 application filed by operational creditor Kritikal Solutions Pvt Ltd.
As the two companies are subject to separate insolvency proceedings, they have different resolution professionals.
The present dispute relates to tablets, electronic devices and other equipment stored in a warehouse where goods associated with TLPL, Byju’s K3 and Aakash were kept.
According to the RP of K3, a communication from logistics company Criticalog in December 2024 had identified certain goods as belonging to K3. The applicant claimed that these assets were subsequently handed over to TLPL’s security personnel and moved to an IndoSpace warehouse.
The RP of K3 alleged that repeated attempts to inspect the warehouse and to segregate K3's assets were unsuccessful. It also claimed that some of the consignments contained specialised tablets loaded with educational material intended for children up to class III.
The ownership claims have been disputed by TLPL’s RP.
According to the submissions recorded in the proceedings, TLPL’s RP maintained that Byju’s K3 was merely a service provider and that the hardware had been procured and supplied by TLPL. It was also argued that the content stored on the devices belonged to TLPL.
₹150 Crore Valuation Versus ₹16 Crore Auction
TLPL’s RP issued the auction notice on 2nd August, with the sale taking place on 14 August 2026. Comprint was subsequently declared the successful bidder.
The K3 RP approached the NCLT seeking protection of the disputed assets and opposing any further disposal of them. By the time the matter came up, however, the auction had already been completed.
On 20 August 2026, the tribunal directed TLPL’s RP to provide detailed information relating to the assets and the auction, including item-wise particulars, valuation, the auction mechanism, the selection of the successful bidder and the destination of the sale proceeds.
At the subsequent hearing, the tribunal was informed that the auctioned goods had been delivered to Comprint.
The K3 side also told the tribunal that at least 15 vehicles carrying assets had reportedly left the warehouse for Mumbai in the preceding days, raising concerns about the ability to recover or preserve the disputed goods if they were further moved or disposed of.
The applicant argued that K3 had a substantial interest in the assets and that its further dissipation could adversely affect its own insolvency resolution process.
It also questioned whether adequate documentary evidence had been produced to establish TLPL’s ownership of all the articles included in the auction.
The tribunal, while considering the competing submissions, noted that some of the articles could indeed belong to TLPL, but that the position concerning the remaining goods was not sufficiently clear.
Tribunal Seeks Evidence before Deciding Ownership
NCLT’s latest direction is therefore aimed at preserving the assets while the ownership dispute is examined.
The tribunal specifically noted that the present status and ownership of the auctioned articles required greater clarity. It considered preservation necessary until concrete evidence could be brought on record.
The suspended directors of Byju’s also opposed the sale, according to the proceedings, questioning the urgency of the auction and the value at which the assets were sold. Their counsel argued that the insolvency process was intended to facilitate revival of the company and raised concerns over the disposal of assets at what was described as a low value.
TLPL’s RP, on the other hand, maintained its position that the goods belonged to TLPL and that the auction had been undertaken with the approval of its committee of creditors. The RP also disputed the claim that Byju’s K3 had established title over the assets.
The tribunal has not accepted either side’s ownership claims at this stage.
The proceedings followed a Karnataka High Court (HC) order dated 28 August 2026 that permitted the applicant to approach NCLT seeking protection of the properties in dispute.
NCLT’s latest order is consequently an interim preservation measure. It does not determine ownership, invalidate the auction or finally decide the competing claims of TLPL and Byju’s K3.
The matter is next scheduled to be heard on 21 September 2026.
