Supreme court overturns kerala high court’s restraint on byju’s ip assets

New Delhi, May 30, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Kerala High Court order that had restrained US Chapter 11 Trustee Claudia Springer from selling intellectual property assets linked to Epic! Creations and Tangible Play—two ed-tech companies formerly acquired by Think & Learn Private Limited (Byju’s Group).

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar found that the High Court had passed the order without granting an opportunity for a hearing to Springer. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Kerala High Court for fresh consideration on June 4, 2025.

Background

The dispute centers on the ownership and control of digital education platforms Epic! and Tangible Play, which serve over 45 million students globally. These platforms were acquired by Byju’s in 2021 and later transferred to Voizzit Information Technology LLC, a Dubai-based company led by Rajendran Vellapalath, in April 2024. Voizzit claims ownership of these assets through a loan assignment arrangement.

In December 2024, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court appointed Claudia Springer as the Chapter 11 Trustee for Epic!, Tangible Play Inc., and Neuron Fuel Inc., following defaults under a $1.2 billion loan facility. The U.S. court issued multiple restraining and contempt orders against Voizzit and its managing director, Rajendran Vellapalath, for attempting to assert ownership over the assets through parallel Indian proceedings in violation of the automatic stay under U.S. law.

Kerala High Court’s Intervention

In May 2025, the Kerala High Court issued an order restraining Trustee Claudia Springer from alienating the assets of Epic! until the Ernakulam Commercial Court decided on an injunction plea filed by Voizzit in an ongoing commercial suit. Springer challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated principles of natural justice, judicial comity, and exceeded the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court concurred with Springer’s arguments, noting that the High Court had passed the order without hearing the affected party. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the need for courts to respect the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals, especially in matters involving international insolvency proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of cross-border insolvency processes and preventing the misuse of domestic legal forums to frustrate international legal obligations.

Implications

This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of foreign insolvency orders in India. It reinforces the principle that Indian courts should not interfere with foreign insolvency proceedings unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The decision also highlights the need for parties to disclose all relevant facts to the court and to respect the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals in matters of international legal disputes.