- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Byju’s Resolution Professional’s Petition In Aakash Shareholding Row Rejected By NCLAT
Byju’s Resolution Professional’s Petition In Aakash Shareholding Row Rejected By NCLAT
A two-member bench of the NCLAT said that because the NCLT order is ‘consensual’ as an interlocutory order which does not decide any rights of the parties, the appellate tribunal cannot interfere at this stage.
Byju's plea against a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order to maintain the status quo of its stake in Aakash Educational Services was rejected by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The NCLT order was deemed consensual and interlocutory by the appellate tribunal.
A plea filed by the Resolution Professional of Think & Learn, which owns the edtech brand Byju’s, was dismissed by the NCLAT, challenging an NCLT order to maintain status quo with respect to the company’s stake in Aakash Educational Services. A two-member bench of the NCLAT said that because the NCLT order is ‘consensual’ as an interlocutory order which does not decide any rights of the parties, the appellate tribunal cannot interfere at this stage. The NCLAT reportedly said, "Since the impugned order takes the shape of an interlocutory order, which is not deciding any of the rights of the parties, coupled with the fact that the order takes the shape of a consenting order, no interference is called for by this tribunal in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction at this stage.”
Through its RP, TLPL had moved the NCLAT’s Chennai branch against the NCLT direction not to change shareholding against the backdrop of plans to raise equity funds by Aakash Educational Services. The NCLT on March 27 had passed an interim order to maintain status quo in respect of Aakash Educational Services as on date till the next date of hearing. Aakash challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, which, after hearing both sides, on April 8, 2025, set aside the NCLT’s interim order and remitted the matter to the insolvency tribunal. In its next hearing on April 30, 2025, this was brought to the notice of the NCLT by Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Counsel for Resolution Professional, who alleged that not only dilution of shareholding of TLPL in Aakash was continuing but also the company’s vital assets have been hypothecated. However, the NCLT observed that any interim relief will not be possible as it requires detailed submissions and the forthcoming summer vacation and passed a consent order that the stake of TLPL will not be diluted in Aakash.



