The Chennai bench of national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT), has dismissed an appeal filed by Byju Raveendran, suspended director and promoter of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, challenging the voting rights claimed by Glass Trust Company LLC in the company’s committee of creditors (CoC).
A two-member NCLAT bench comprising judicial member justice N Seshasayee and technical member Jatindranath Swain held that the order passed by the national company law tribunal (NCLT) did not determine any substantive rights of the parties. NCLT had merely scheduled Mr Raveendran’s application for hearing on 31 August 2026.
The appellate tribunal said the 22nd July NCLT order is procedural in nature and therefore did not give Mr Raveendran grounds to maintain an appeal against it.
“The present order, which is impugned in this appeal, is only a procedural order and no right of any of the parties, more particularly that of the appellant, is decided as to pose a threat to his substantive right,” NCLAT observed.
Dispute Over Glas Trust’s Voting Power
The dispute relates to Glas Trust’s role in the insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think & Learn, the parent company of BYJU’S.
Glas Trust has submitted a claim in the CIRP in its capacity as administrative agent and collateral agent for around 124 back-end creditors. Mr Raveendran’s counsel argued before the Tribunal that Glas Trust consequently controlled more than 99% of the voting share in the CoC.
The promoter has questioned the basis of Glas Trust’s authority to represent the lenders. His counsel argued that authorisations had been produced for only 78 of the purported back-end creditors.
Mr Raveendran also disputed the existence of a direct contractual relationship between Think & Learn and the lenders represented by Glas Trust.
The challenge was part of an application, IA 490 of 2026, filed by Raveendran before the NCLT. Among other reliefs, he sought information from the resolution professional concerning lenders allegedly disqualified under the 24 November 2021 credit and guarantee agreement.
He also sought details on when those lenders had authorised Glas Trust to represent them while filing its claim in form C in the insolvency proceedings.
Form C is the prescribed document through which a financial creditor submits its claim during a corporate insolvency resolution process.
Earlier Challenge To Glas Trust Remains Pending
The dispute over Glas Trust’s presence in the CoC predates the latest application. An earlier application filed by suspended director and promoter Riju Ravindran had sought the removal of Glas Trust from the CoC.
However, NCLT was restrained from passing a final order on that application after NCLAT, on 26 September 2025, directed it not to do so. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the interim arrangement should continue on 27 February 2026.
Against this backdrop, Buju Raveendran filed the fresh application before the NCLT.
When the matter came up on 22 July 2026, the NCLT did not adjudicate the underlying challenge to Glas Trust’s voting rights. Instead, it fixed August 31 as the date for hearing the application.
During the NCLAT proceedings, Mr Raveendran’s counsel sought urgent consideration of the matter.
The counsel argued that the issue had become particularly pressing because the resolution professional was allegedly attempting to sell assets of Think & Learn under Regulation 29 of the CIRP Regulations.
The resolution professional (RP) disputed this contention, pointing out that no such proposed sale had been pleaded before NCLT and that the issue did not form part of the appeal before NCLAT.
Glas Trust also opposed the appeal, arguing that the NCLT had not ruled on the merits of Mr Raveendran’s objections. Since the 22nd July order only fixed a hearing date, Glas Trust contended that Raveendran could not be treated as an aggrieved party entitled to maintain an appeal.
The appellate tribunal accepted Glas Trust’s argument. The bench said the questions raised by Raveendran remained open for determination by the NCLT and that it would not pre-empt the insolvency tribunal’s decision on those issues.
“We agree with the contention of the counsel for the Glas Trust,” the bench said.
NCLAT held that the impugned NCLT order is only a procedural direction and had not determined any substantive right of Raveendran, Glas Trust or any other party.
Consequently, the appellate tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.
Noel Tata’s Real Test: Control, Capital and the Mistry Exit
Sucheta Dalal,
21 August 2026
The impending exit of N Chandrasekaran (Chandra) as chairman of Tata Sons, takes us back, once again, to 1991, the year when Ratan Tata took charge of the Tata group and irrevocably transformed it from the days of his illustrious...
Tata Sons AGM Adjourned for First Time in History over Lack of Quorum; Tata Trusts’ Representative Missing
Moneylife Digital Team
19 August 2026
The 108th annual general meeting (AGM) of Tata Sons Pvt Ltd, the holding company of the Tata group, was adjourned on Tuesday after the meeting failed to secure the required quorum, marking the first such instance in the company’s...
NCLT Imposes ₹15 Lakh Costs on Spicejet and Aviator ML for Last-minute Settlement
SN Thyagarajan (Bar
and
Bench)
19 August 2026
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday allowed aircraft lessor Aviator ML 29641 Limited to withdraw its insolvency petition against SpiceJet but imposed costs of ₹15 lakh on the parties for settling the dispute at a...
Reliance Industries, Rolls-Royce Join Hands To Develop Indigenous AMCA Fighter Jet Engine
Moneylife Digital Team
15 August 2026
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and British aerospace major Rolls-Royce have announced their strategic intent to partner on the design, development, manufacturing and delivery of a sovereign indigenous combat engine for India’s advanced...
