NCLAT rejects EY partner's plea in Byju's-Aakash case

Bengaluru: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by Shailendra Ajmera, resolution professional for Think & Learn (Byju's) and a partner at Ernst & Young (EY), in the ongoing dispute over Aakash Educational Services (AESL).
Ajmera challenged an April 30 order by the NCLT Bengaluru that directed all parties to maintain the status quo on Byju's 25% stake in AESL. The NCLAT held that the order was interim and passed with the consent of all parties, making it ineligible for appeal. The tribunal's bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and technical member Jatindranath Swain, sided with arguments presented by senior counsels for AESL and the Manipal Group, which is the largest shareholder in AESL.
They said Ajmera's appeal was not legally maintainable and that the underlying company petition under Sections 241–242 of the Companies Act was itself questionable given the ongoing insolvency proceedings.
The appellate bench also noted that the April 30 order stemmed from a prior arrangement recorded by the Karnataka High Court on April 8, following the quashing of an earlier NCLT order that was passed without hearing all stakeholders. The matter will now return to the NCLT Bengaluru for a full hearing. Among the issues to be decided are whether the interim arrangement should continue, whether EY should be made a party to the proceedings due to its advisory role to multiple stakeholders, and whether Ajmera's petition is maintainable.
The dispute follows a series of transactions that led to the Manipal Group acquiring a controlling stake in AESL. Byju's acquired AESL in 2021 in a deal valued at around $1 billion.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Eid wishes
,
messages
, and
quotes
!

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

13 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

HC confirms ₹9.76-crore Stamp Act penalty on IL&FS

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday confirmed a ₹ 9.76-crore penalty imposed on IL&FS Financial Services Ltd (IFIN) for failing to pay stamp duty on time following the demerger of the company. A single judge bench of justice Jitendra Jain dismissed the petition filed by the IL&FS group firm, challenging the levy of penalty over and above the stamp duty of ₹ 7.07 crore, which was payable towards registration of the court order on the company's demerger. (Shutterstock) IL&FS (Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services) underwent a demerger in 2007-08, wherein iIts ancillary businesses including IFIN were constituted as wholly-owned subsidiaries and IL&FS was transformed into a holding company focused on investments and lending to its group companies. After the Bombay high court operating under the Companies Act, 1956 sanctioned the demerger scheme in April 2008, the company lodged the document with the collector of stamps for adjudication of stamp duty. The company subsequently failed to supply documents and information sought by the collector of stamps, which resulted in the collector issuing a demand letter on December 19, 2014 for payment of stamp duty and penalty. On December 31, 2014, the collector of stamps issued a demand notice to the company, directing them to pay ₹ 7.07 crore towards stamp duty and ₹ 9.76 crore towards penalty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The company accepted the stamp duty, but opposed imposition of the penalty and appealed before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) in January 2015. On March 25, 2015, the CCRA granted a stay on recovery proceedings for the penalty after the company deposited the stamp duty. After the CCRA dismissed the company's petition in 2017, it approached the high court. Before the high court, IL&FS argued that as per section 31(4) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, penalty at the rate of 2% could be imposed only if the stamp duty payable under section 30 of the Act was not paid within 60 days from the date on which the notice of demand was served. The company contended that March 25, 2015 – the date of the interim order of the CCRA – was the date of serving demand notice under section 31(4) and since it had paid the stamp duty on March 27, 2015 – that is, within two days of the said interim order – there was no default and consequently, no penalty could be imposed. The court observed that the 60-day period would, at most, start from December 19, 2014 – the date on which the demand letter was issued; or December 31, 2014 – the date on which the demand notice was issued; or January 14, 2015 – then the company filed an appeal with the CCRA. 'The petitioner after having admitted the liability of payment of stamp duty vide letter dated December 19, 2014 and made the respondents (collector of stamps) to issue final demand notice dated December 31, 2014 failed to make payment within 60 days thereof, which would expire on March 2, 2015,' the court said, confirming the penalty imposed on the company.

Hans India

16 hours ago

• Hans India

Aakash Educational Services Limited Expands Presence in Chandanagar with New Centre Launch

Chandanagar, (Hyderabad), June 20, 2025: Aakash Educational Services Limited (AESL), the national leader in test preparatory services for NEET & JEE, proudly announces the launch of its new centre in Chandanagar. The inauguration ceremony was graced by the ceremony commenced with a ribbon-cutting by Chief Guest Arekapudi Gandhi, MLA from Serilingampally, TG, alongside esteemed guests including Mr. AMEETH KUMAR URITI (State Head), Mr. Nishanth Srivastava, Operation Lead, AP & TG of Aakash Educational Services Ltd. The new classroom center is designed to cater to students preparing for Medical and Engineering entrance examinations. In addition to NEET and JEE coaching, the center will also offer foundation-level courses aimed at preparing students for competitive examinations such as Olympiads, while strengthening their academic fundamentals. Speaking about the launch Dheeraj Kumar Misra, Chief Academic and Business Head at AESL said, "We are pleased to announce the opening of our new centre in Chandanagar, which represents an important step in our mission to bring quality coaching closer to students. Our focus remains on empowering students with strong academic foundations, conceptual clarity, and confidence to excel in competitive exams like NEET and JEE. This centre will offer access to experienced faculty, comprehensive study materials, and a learning environment designed to maximize student potential. We believe that every student, regardless of their location, deserves the best education and resources, and this expansion reflects our commitment to that goal." With this expansion, AESL aims to provide quality education and expert guidance to more students in the region. This strategic move addresses the growing demand for top-tier preparatory services, ensuring that more aspiring students can access the high-quality coaching that Aakash Institute is renowned for. AESL is recognized for offering thorough and effective preparation programs for students aiming to excel in high-stakes medical (NEET) and engineering entrance exams (JEE), as well as competitive exams like NTSE and Olympiads. The institute is dedicated to delivering top-quality test preparation services that empower students to realize their full potential and succeed in their academic pursuits. J, R, H, D, A, K warmly welcomed attendees, emphasizing the institute's mission to provide top-tier academic support for students preparing for IIT-JEE, NEET, and other competitive exams.

The Hindu

2 days ago

• The Hindu

HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay High Court over FIR by Lilavati Trust

HDFC Bank's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan has moved the Bombay High Court, seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by Prashant Mehta, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which oversees Lilavati Hospital. The FIR accused him of accepting a sum of ₹2.05 crore as a bribe to help the Chetan Mehta Group allegedly retain illegal control of the charitable trust. In his petition, Mr. Jagdishan has denied all allegations, terming the complaint as 'false and motivated,' and arguing that the FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law intended to malign his reputation. When the petition came up for hearing on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) before a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, both the judges recused themselves from hearing the case. Later in the day, the case was mentioned before another Division Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shyam Chandak, but Justice Kotwal recused from hearing the matter. The matter will now be reassigned to a new Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice and will be heard in due course of time. The FIR lodged earlier this month on June 6, with the Bandra Police Station under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Trust through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta. The FIR was filed pursuant to an order of a Magistrate court at Bandra, following the Trust's application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A June 9 statement by the Trust claimed that the purported payment was part of a wider plan to loot the Trust and that the banker and his family enjoyed free medical treatment at the hospital. The Trust has further alleged that it has placed deposits and investments worth ₹ 48 crore with HDFC Bank since the financial year 2022, suggesting a conflict of interest. It also accused Mr. Jagdishan of offering ₹ 1.5 crore under the pretext of corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds, allegedly, to destroy and forge evidence in an internal Trust dispute. The Trust has also alleged that despite judicial findings and multiple complaints, HDFC Bank failed to act, violating Section 166 of the Companies Act and SEBI governance mandates. Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mr. Jagdishan, denied all the allegations and called them 'outrageous' and 'preposterous'. 'One of the most absurd allegations was that he received money from trustees. The absurdity of the allegation is that he allegedly received ₹2 crore to harass HDFC Bank borrowers,' Mr. Desai submitted. The FIR is a retaliatory measure stemming from HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings against Splendour Gems Limited — a company owned by the Mehta family — which has defaulted on loans amounting to ₹ 65.22 crore in loans as of May 31, he said. 'These actions follow recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against a company owned by the father of one of the trustees. They now use the façade of Lilavati Trust to take action against us,' Mr. Desai said. The petition read that the FIR is liable to be quashed by the High Court as it is an abuse of the legal process, and the allegations made in the FIR are wholly motivated by mala fide intentions and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. It also said that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever to the commission of the alleged offences, if any, and in fact the FIR is nothing but a malicious retaliation in relation to the ongoing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank. 'The impugned order also ought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds that the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law as it has been passed in disregard to the mandatory requirements under Section 175 (3) of BNSS that should have been followed by the complainant.' The petition claimed that the present case against Mr. Jagdishan who has been recognised for his work by numerous awards and accolades, is nothing but a malicious attempt to scathe his name and reputation and of HDFC Bank that plays a significant role in the financial sphere of the country. 'Such criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the bank are the larger scheme of the debtors to scuttle away from paying the debt owned.'