What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Byju’s Indian insolvency case began with a BCCI petition over a team sponsorship agreement, not with a court finding that Byju Raveendran had personally committed wrongdoing. The proceedings widened to include a separate US loan dispute involving an approximately $1.2 billion credit facility, challenges over a settlement, and a fight about who belonged on the creditors’ committee. The latest case-status record in the available materials says the Supreme Court dismissed Raveendran’s appeal on May 4, 2026; that disposition alone does not establish that the insolvency process has ended.
What happened to Byju’s?
The company at the center of the Indian case is Think and Learn Private Limited, the corporate debtor associated with the Byju’s education business. The Supreme Court described it as a company providing online educational services. The case that placed it into insolvency proceedings began with a petition by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which said Think and Learn had not met its obligations under a team sponsorship agreement.
That Indian insolvency case later intersected with disputes involving Byju’s Alpha Inc., a US subsidiary that borrowed approximately $1.2 billion under a credit and guarantee agreement. Think and Learn guaranteed that facility. The Indian case then became contested on several fronts: whether a BCCI settlement could be used to withdraw the insolvency proceeding, how the creditors’ committee should be composed, and how to treat the separate US lending dispute.
Why did Think and Learn enter insolvency proceedings?
The BCCI sponsorship claim
Think and Learn and the BCCI entered a team sponsorship agreement on July 25, 2019, concerning sponsorship of the Indian national cricket team. The BCCI later filed as an operational creditor, seeking to recover debt connected with that agreement. On July 16, 2024, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the petition against Think and Learn and appointed an interim resolution professional.
#1 Best Overall
This explains the trigger for the Indian insolvency case; it should not be mistaken for a complete account of Byju’s financial history or the only dispute facing the business. The court records described here do not establish a full audited financial trajectory, company valuation timeline, or the company’s current product operations.
The separate US facility
On November 24, 2021, Byju’s Alpha entered a credit and guarantee agreement for a facility of approximately $1.2 billion, as recounted by the Supreme Court of India in its 2024 judgment. Think and Learn guaranteed the facility. The loan dispute was distinct from the BCCI’s operational-creditor petition, even though the proceedings and creditor claims later overlapped in the insolvency process.
What was the Byju’s Alpha loan dispute?
Lenders raised allegations that approximately $533 million was transferred from Byju’s Alpha to a US hedge fund in April and July 2022. The Supreme Court’s 2024 account recounts those allegations and describes a Delaware court’s preliminary injunction restricting movement of related assets. The figure is an amount alleged by the lender side and reported in the litigation record, not a final finding that Raveendran committed fraud or personally diverted the funds.
The distinction matters: an allegation in a court proceeding and an interim order restricting asset movement do not, by themselves, resolve whether the alleged conduct occurred or establish personal liability. The Indian Supreme Court judgment records the dispute’s procedural context; it should not be read as a final adjudication of the alleged transfers as fraud by Raveendran.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What did India’s Supreme Court decide?
After the NCLT admitted the BCCI petition, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) approved a settlement between the BCCI and Think and Learn and allowed withdrawal of the insolvency proceeding. GLAS Trust challenged that result. On October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order. It held that the tribunal could not use its inherent powers to approve withdrawal outside the procedure established by insolvency law and rules. The parties could pursue the remedies available under that statutory framework.
The ruling concerned the lawful route for withdrawing the insolvency case; it was not a final ruling on every debt, the US transfer allegations, or Raveendran’s personal culpability. In December 2024, an NCLT procedural order recorded that the insolvency process had resumed and that withdrawal and creditor-committee issues remained before the tribunal.
How did the creditor-committee dispute develop?
The insolvency process also produced a dispute over the composition of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the body representing financial creditors in the process. In its August 12, 2025 judgment, the NCLAT upheld the original committee formed on August 21, 2024, and restored Aditya Birla Finance Limited’s status as a financial creditor. The judgment records that the NCLT had set aside the resolution professional’s later reconstitution of the committee.
A case-status record reports that on May 4, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed Raveendran’s appeal against the NCLAT order. That record establishes the reported disposition of the appeal, but the materials available here do not include the underlying Supreme Court order’s reasoning. The dismissal should not be treated as proof that the insolvency process itself was concluded or that every separate dispute was resolved.
Best Value
How the Indian and US proceedings differ
| Proceeding | Jurisdiction and issue | What the record establishes | Status described in the available record |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCCI petition | India; operational debt tied to a team sponsorship agreement | The NCLT admitted the petition against Think and Learn on July 16, 2024, and appointed an interim resolution professional. | The Supreme Court set aside a settlement-based withdrawal order in October 2024; the NCLT recorded that the process resumed in December 2024. |
| Byju’s Alpha facility | United States loan and guarantee dispute; Think and Learn guaranteed the facility | The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment records an approximately $1.2 billion facility and lender-side allegations concerning approximately $533 million in transfers. | The judgment recounts a Delaware preliminary injunction restricting movement of related assets. The described record does not establish a final finding of fraud by Raveendran. |
| Creditor-committee challenge | India; composition of the CoC and Aditya Birla Finance’s creditor status | The NCLAT upheld the original committee and restored Aditya Birla Finance Limited’s financial-creditor status on August 12, 2025. | A case-status record reports that Raveendran’s Supreme Court appeal was dismissed on May 4, 2026; the underlying order’s reasoning is not described here. |
What the case does—and does not—show
The court record supports a specific account of the insolvency proceedings: Think and Learn was the corporate debtor; the BCCI petition concerned sponsorship-related operational debt; Think and Learn guaranteed Byju’s Alpha’s large US facility; and disputes over settlement withdrawal and creditor representation shaped the Indian process. It also records lender-side allegations about transfers and a Delaware preliminary injunction.
Those proceedings are not a substitute for audited company accounts or a complete business history. No verified revenue, profit or loss, net-worth, or valuation figures are established in the court records described here, so they cannot support a precise financial account of the company’s rise or decline. Nor does the appeal dismissal, without the underlying order or later insolvency records, establish the final outcome of the corporate insolvency process.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
