Kochi: The Kerala High Court witnessed a battle of words in a case pertaining to the ongoing insolvency proceedings against Think and Learn Private Limited, which owns the ed-tech firm Byju’s. The case, which was scheduled for hearing on November 6, was brought before the court today.

Justice Johnson John, the junior judge on the division bench, said that the earlier order had clearly spelt out that the case was to be listed only on November 6 and that he was unaware as to why it came up for hearing today.

Voizzit Technology (a creditor who has claimed right to the ownership of Byju’s) had submitted a review petition in the court challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed by it earlier seeking a probe into the insolvency proceedings.

A Bench of Justices K Natarajan and John had earlier issued notice on the review petition filed by Voizzit during an October 27 hearing and posted the case for further consideration on November 6. However, the matter came to be listed today, with Justice John repeatedly expressing that this was done without his knowledge.

The Bench, however, added that they were unable to agree on whether the judgment under review should be stayed while the review petition was pending.

Adv PC Sasidharan, representing Vozzit's counsel, claimed that today’s split opinion and reference to the Chief Justice amounted to changing the order passed by the High Court in the last hearing of the matter.

It was his argument that the judges were unanimous on October 27 as regards the stay order.

Justice John, however, raised a more striking issue. He expressed that he was in the dark about why the matter was listed today at all. Notably, according to case details available on the High Court’s website, the matter was listed next on November 6, not today.

Senior Advocates Santhosh Mathew (representing EY) and Joseph Kodianthara (resolution professional), said that since legal issues are involved, only after listing can any order be passed on the case.

While Sasidharan reiterated his claim that the judges were unanimous on October 27, Justice John maintained that he was never in favour of stay that day. He said that the matter had been simply kept for further hearing on November 6 after issuance of notice.

The Bench eventually proceeded to order that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice so that a third judge may give his view on whether the judgment under review needs to be stayed.

The review plea by Vozzit and its sister company seeks the reconsideration of a June 12 High Court judgment dismissing its appeal alleging irregularities in insolvency proceedings concerning Byju's.

The June 12 Division Bench judgment upheld a single-judge’s June 3 refusal to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other agencies to investigate the insolvency proceedings, particularly the conduct of the insolvency professionals and GLAS Trust Company LLC.

The latest petition alleges that GLAS Trust Company LLC, which claims to represent lenders of a $1.2-billion loan to Byju’s US subsidiary, relied on a fabricated direction letter dated July 25, 2024, to secure a dominant voting share in the Committee of Creditors.

Vozzit has argued that the High Court, in its earlier ruling, overlooked material evidence and subsequent developments, including an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) disciplinary order against the former interim resolution professional.

The present petition seeks review and recall of the June judgment and restoration of the appeal for fresh consideration. They have also sought a stay on the insolvency resolution proceedings against Byju’s.

Among other allegations, Voizzit also claims that EY, appointed as the insolvency professional entity (IPE) in the CIRP, facilitated GLAS Trust’s admission to the Committee of Creditors without proper verification and while concealing a conflict of interest.

(With Bar and Bench Inputs)