On April 12, 2025, the Karnataka High Court passed an interim order instructing the preservation of email communications connected to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent company behind Byju’s. This order comes amidst ongoing proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and a related criminal investigation, which is currently being pursued by the authorities. The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna in response to a petition filed by Byju Raveendran, the founder of Byju’s, who sought several directions to ensure the safeguarding of crucial digital evidence linked to the ongoing insolvency proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the insolvency proceedings of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, which operates the edtech platform Byju’s. Byju’s was admitted to CIRP in July 2024 after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru allowed a petition filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The petition was related to a default of ₹158 crore owed by Byju’s to the cricket board.
Following the NCLT’s order, Pankaj Srivastava was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, the situation became more complicated when the NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) decided to close the insolvency proceedings after accepting a settlement agreement between Byju’s and BCCI. The settlement was contingent upon an undertaking from Riju Raveendran, Byju’s brother, confirming that the repayment would be personally funded and not from funds that were meant for financial creditors.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court intervened, reversing the NCLAT’s decision. It directed the NCLT to revisit the matter and make a fresh decision regarding the insolvency process. Furthermore, Srivastava was replaced as the Resolution Professional after it was discovered that he had failed to carry out his duties effectively.
Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy
In addition to the insolvency-related matters, Byju Raveendran accused certain parties involved in the process of criminal misconduct. These parties included Ernst & Young, Srivastava, and Glas Trust, one of the financial creditors. Raveendran alleged that these parties were engaged in acts of criminal conspiracy against him, and in response, he filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the Bengaluru police.
This ongoing investigation has taken a significant turn in recent days, with Raveendran filing a new petition in the Karnataka High Court. He claimed that during a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting held on April 8, 2025, it was decided that over 2,000 emails relevant to both the criminal investigation and the insolvency process would be deleted. The deletion of these emails, Raveendran argued, would cause irreparable damage to the ongoing investigation, as neither the police nor Raveendran himself had access to these sensitive emails. He further argued that the emails contained crucial evidence related to stakeholder communications that could provide significant insights into the case.
Plea for Email Preservation
In his petition, Raveendran specifically requested the Court to take immediate action to preserve the data contained in the company’s official CIRP email ID, ‘ip.byjus@outlook.com.’ He sought a series of directions aimed at preventing the deletion of these crucial communications and ensuring that they are safeguarded for the benefit of the ongoing investigation.
Among the reliefs sought by Raveendran were the following:
- Seizure of the CIRP email account by the police: Raveendran requested that the police seize the CIRP email account and preserve all data contained in it to prevent any further loss of emails.
- Recovery of deleted emails: He also sought directions for the police to take legal steps to recover the deleted emails from the CIRP email account and preserve them for continued investigation.
- Production of the case diary: Raveendran requested that the police be directed to produce the case diary in Crime No. 44/2025 so that the progress of the investigation could be assessed.
- Expedited investigation: Raveendran urged the Court to expedite the investigation into the case while ensuring that no arrests are made unless required by law.
- Interim relief against IT expert appointment: Raveendran sought a temporary injunction to restrain the current Resolution Professional from appointing a third-party IT expert, as had been discussed during the CoC meeting. He also requested a stay on the execution of decisions made during the CoC meeting until the current petition and related quashing petitions are disposed of.
Court’s Ruling and Directions
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while considering the petition, noted that while some of the prayers were related to the merits of the decisions taken during the insolvency proceedings and the CoC meeting, these matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT and NCLAT. Therefore, the Court refrained from addressing those aspects of the petition.
However, the Court did grant one of the key reliefs sought by Raveendran — the preservation of all emails and conversations associated with the CIRP email account. This interim order is aimed at ensuring that no further emails are deleted and that the integrity of the evidence is maintained until further orders are passed.
The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Rahul Cariappa, informed the Court that the investigation in the FIR filed by Raveendran had been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court on March 17, 2025. As such, Justice Nagaprasanna opined that any directions related to the progress or production of the case diary would be premature at this stage.
The case will be heard next on April 21, 2025, when the Court is expected to take further decisions based on the developments in the case.
Implications and Legal Insights
This ruling by the Karnataka High Court highlights the importance of preserving digital evidence in complex corporate and criminal investigations. The Court’s direction to preserve emails related to the insolvency process is significant, as it ensures that vital communications cannot be tampered with or erased, which could potentially undermine the ongoing investigations.
Moreover, the case underscores the importance of judicial oversight in corporate insolvency matters, especially when there are allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct. Byju Raveendran’s accusations of criminal conspiracy against financial stakeholders and the former Resolution Professional add another layer of complexity to this high-profile case.
The Court’s focus on preserving digital evidence aligns with broader trends in the legal system, where the integrity of electronic communications and data has become a crucial factor in both corporate and criminal proceedings. The decision to hear the matter again on April 21 will likely provide further clarity on the steps to be taken in the ongoing insolvency proceedings and criminal investigation.
As the case unfolds, the legal community and business world will closely monitor the developments, especially regarding the preservation of evidence and the handling of insolvency disputes under the IBC. This case could set important precedents for how digital evidence is treated in the context of corporate insolvency and related criminal investigations in India.
