Can Byju Raveendran still shape Byju's insolvency outcome?

As Byju's corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) approaches a crucial stage, a key question hangs over India's once most-valued startup. Does founder Byju Raveendran still have the ability to influence the company's future?

The question has gained renewed significance after a Singapore court sentenced Raveendran to six months in jail for contempt, finding that he repeatedly failed to comply with orders to disclose information related to assets and ownership documents. In response, Raveendran, in a media statement, said he remained focused on "resolution over confrontation" and claimed that settlement discussions with lenders were at an advanced stage, with only a few residual issues left to be resolved. He also described the legal action against him as an unnecessary pressure tactic.

The key question is, despite losing formal control of the company under the insolvency process, Can Raveendran can still shape the outcome through settlement efforts and negotiations, or whether creditors and the resolution professional now firmly control the company's fate.

A corrigendum issued in May extended the deadline for submission of resolution plans to June 30, 2026, setting the stage for potential bidders to evaluate the embattled edtech firm's assets. While the insolvency framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is designed to be promoter-independent, legal experts say Raveendran's role may not entirely disappeared—though his room for manoeuvre is shrinking rapidly.

"Given the recent dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court challenging restoration of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), influencing the process would be difficult," says Jayesh H, Co-founder of Juris Corp, a law firm based out of Mumbai and Delhi which specialises in insolvency cases. According to him, the founder's most viable route remains pursuing a settlement that could lead to withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. However, such a move would require approval from creditors holding at least 90% voting share in the CoC.

According to law experts, under Section 12A of the IBC, promoter-led settlements can coexist with an ongoing CIRP, but only if creditors agree. "This is not a promoter's right but a creditor's prerogative," notes Siddharth Chandrashekhar, a Bombay High Court lawyer, expert in advising early-stage companies and startups. Previous attempts by Raveendran to settle claims have faced resistance from key lenders, including GLAS and Aditya Birla Finance.

While the IBC is intended to prevent backdoor entries and ensure a transparent, creditor-led resolution process, Jayesh says insolvency proceedings have occasionally seen parallel negotiations and settlement efforts influence outcomes.
The balance of power has largely shifted to the resolution professional (RP) and creditors. Once insolvency proceedings were admitted, management control vested with the RP and Raveendran ceased to have any formal decision-making role. Promoters, experts say, can at best act as facilitators in settlement discussions.

Recent developments in Singapore may further weaken the founder's position.

Another key question is what remains worth acquiring. Once regarded as the crown jewel of the group, Aakash Educational Services has become less central after dilution of Byju's stake following the implementation of the rights issue. "Aakash was the real prize, but that may no longer be the case," says Jayesh. There are limited interested buyers, experts say.
As the June 30 deadline approaches, Raveendran may still influence the narrative around settlements and negotiations. But in the formal insolvency process, creditors increasingly appear to hold the edge.