Karnataka High Court Sets Aside NCLT’s Status Quo Order in Aakash-Byju’s Shareholding Dispute

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that directed Aakash Educational Services Ltd to maintain the status quo on its shareholding structure. The High Court, however, barred Aakash from diluting Byju’s (Think & Learn Pvt Ltd)’s stake in the company until the matter is fully heard by the NCLT. The case has been remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration.

The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna after Aakash and its majority shareholder, Manipal Systems, challenged the NCLT’s decision on the grounds that it had been issued without granting them a chance to present their case. Aakash is currently embroiled in a legal tussle over a proposed amendment to its Articles of Association (AoA), which is being contested by shareholder Singapore Topco, backed by Blackstone. Topco argued that the amendment could dilute its 6.8% stake, originally acquired under a merger agreement with Byju’s.

Further objections came from Glas Trust, a lender to Byju’s, which claimed the amendment was a tactic by Byju’s former management to reduce the company’s significant holding in Aakash. Glas Trust stressed Aakash’s strategic value to Byju’s and flagged the move as an attempt to undermine the company’s creditors.

Aakash defended the proposed changes to the AoA, arguing that the amendment was essential to secure funding. Manipal Systems, Aakash’s largest stakeholder, has supported this position. Initially, the NCLT issued an order restraining Aakash from implementing the amendment. The Karnataka High Court later stayed this order, permitting Aakash to proceed.

However, Singapore Topco escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court’s jurisdiction. The apex court ordered Aakash to halt implementation and approach the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for resolution. The NCLAT, in turn, directed Aakash and Manipal Systems to seek relief by applying to vacate the stay before the NCLT.

Before the NCLT could decide on Aakash’s application to vacate the stay, Singapore Topco unexpectedly withdrew its objection. Despite this, the NCLT issued a fresh order on March 27 directing status quo, which Aakash contested in the Karnataka High Court.

During NCLT proceedings, Aakash’s counsel, Senior Advocate CK Nandakumar, noted that he had expected an adjournment and was surprised by the tribunal’s sudden decision, as the order had already been signed. This led to Aakash approaching the High Court.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for April 30. Aakash is represented by Senior Advocate CK Nandakumar, along with Advocates Shyam Sundar HV and R Chandrachud. Manipal Systems is represented by Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa and Advocate Varun S. Glas Trust is being represented by Senior Advocate Udaya Holla. Appeals related to the matter are currently pending before the NCLAT in Chennai.

Allahabad High Court Orders Action Against Lawyer for False Death Claim to Seek Adjournment

The Allahabad High Court has ordered disciplinary proceedings against advocate Shiv Prakash for falsely claiming his father’s death to obtain adjournments in a case. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the counsel’s actions amounted to misconduct and were “unbecoming of an advocate of this Court.”

The order came in a case involving petitions challenging decisions by the Additional District Magistrate and the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in Moradabad, which dealt with the seizure of 4,000 litres of adulterated milk. Prakash, appearing for the petitioners, had twice sought adjournments through his junior counsel, citing his father’s recent death.

However, the State’s Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sanjai Singh, objected, pointing out that Bar Council records already listed Prakash as the son of “Late Shyam Lal Tiwari.” On March 12, Prakash’s junior again sought an adjournment using the same claim. The Court, suspicious of the repeated excuse, directed Prakash to appear in person.

When questioned by the Court, Prakash admitted his father had died before he even joined the legal profession. Taking note of the false claim, Justice Agarwal directed that the matter be referred to the U.P. Bar Council for action under the Advocates Act, 1961, and asked the Council to proceed after calling for an explanation from Prakash within two months.

Alongside ordering disciplinary action, the Court also dismissed the writ petition on its merits. Justice Agarwal noted that, given the gravity of the case and the evidence presented, no interference was warranted in the impugned orders.

Supreme Courts of India and Nepal Sign MoU to Strengthen Judicial Cooperation

In a significant step towards enhancing regional legal collaboration, the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Nepal signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Monday. The agreement aims to develop, promote, and reinforce judicial cooperation between the two neighboring nations.

The MoU was formalized in the presence of Chief Justice of Nepal, Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, and Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The signing ceremony was also attended by several dignitaries, including India’s Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal, and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association President Vipin Nair.

This bilateral MoU is set to facilitate the exchange of legal information, promote interaction between judges and judicial officers, and support training programs and academic initiatives. It underscores the shared goal of building long-term institutional bonds while fostering mutual legal development.

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna described the agreement as more than a ceremonial gesture, calling it a reaffirmation of the deep-rooted historical and civilizational ties between India and Nepal. He emphasized that this evolving cooperation would bolster the rule of law and regional judicial integrity, fostering a shared commitment to justice. He further acknowledged the cross-pollination of legal principles between the two countries and recalled that Indian courts had taken note of Nepalese judgments in landmark rulings, such as the decriminalization of Section 377 IPC, while Nepal had adopted foundational Indian constitutional doctrines, including the celebrated Basic Structure doctrine.

Expressing gratitude to Nepalese counterparts for their commitment to collaboration, CJI Khanna said, “Let this MoU be the beginning of this new chapter—one that allows our judicial institutions to Cross the Rubicon.”

The agreement sets the stage for deeper regional integration of judicial systems, built on shared values, mutual respect, and a vision for a more connected legal community in South Asia.