Byju's clarifies: Raveendran's appeal not rejected in Singapore

Byju's clarifies that founder Byju Raveendran's appeal against a Singapore court's civil contempt order is still pending, stating that a recent hearing only denied a temporary stay of the order and did not reject the main substantive appeal.

Edtech firm Byju's has clarified that founder Byju Raveendran's appeal against a civil contempt order passed by a Singapore court remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal, stating that recent reports suggesting his bid to overturn the order had been rejected were inaccurate.

Company Clarifies Distinction in Legal Proceedings

In a statement, the company said the hearing held before the General Division of the Singapore High Court on July 9, 2026, was limited to an application seeking a temporary suspension, or stay, of the earlier civil contempt order dated May 25, 2026, while the appeal is being considered by the Court of Appeal.

According to the company, the High Court declined the application for a stay. It did not hear, decide or reject Raveendran's substantive appeal against the contempt finding. The appeal remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal and is yet to be heard.

The High Court declined the stay application but did not hear, decide or reject the substantive appeal against the civil contempt finding.

The company added that it is therefore incorrect to state that Byju Raveendran has lost a bid to overturn the order or sentence, as the appeal challenging the underlying contempt finding continues to remain before the appellate court.

It further said that Raveendran also remains entitled to seek appropriate interim relief from the Singapore Court of Appeal.

The company noted that the stay application and the substantive appeal are legally distinct proceedings and should not be treated as the same.

Legal Position and Nature of Dispute

Clarifying the implications of the High Court's decision, the statement said the suggestion that the ruling has effectively barred Raveendran from returning to Singapore overstates the legal position. According to the company, a suspension of the order can still be sought before the Court of Appeal.

It also stated that the order has no practical effect unless and until Raveendran chooses to enter Singapore.

The statement further added that the underlying matter relates to civil contempt arising from disputed document-disclosure obligations in ongoing arbitration proceedings. It said the proceedings do not constitute a criminal conviction and are not a finding on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The company also emphasised that the order is not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, diversion of funds or personal wrongdoing against Raveendran.

'No New Development of Substance': Litigation Advisor

J. Michael McNutt, Senior Litigation Advisor to Byju Raveendran and the founders at Lazareff Le Bars, said there had been "no new development of substance" in the matter.

McNutt stated, "There is no new development of substance in this matter. On 9 July the Singapore High Court declined an application to stay the civil contempt order of 25 May 2026. The dismissal is about timing, not merits. Mr Raveendran is not presently in Singapore and, because there is no certainty of when, or whether, he intends to travel to Singapore, the Court held there was no live question for it to decide, and left it to be raised if and when the situation arises".

McNutt further added, "In the future, should he be in, or intend to travel to, Singapore, he may apply then and the Court will deal with it. The order has no practical effect unless and until he chooses to enter Singapore. Hence, this is not a new turn in the case. The stay was declined by the same court that made the underlying contempt finding, and that finding is precisely what is now being challenged before the Court of Appeal. The contempt order itself remains contested. The nature of the matter is unchanged. This is a civil contempt arising from disputed document disclosure obligations in ongoing arbitration proceedings. It is not a criminal case, it is not a finding on the merits, and it is not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, diversion of funds or personal wrongdoing against Mr Raveendran. It has no implication outside of Singapore. Mr Raveendran maintains that he did not breach any Court order, intentionally or otherwise, and will continue to pursue every lawful remedy through the proper legal process."

(ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)