Byju Raveendran says Singapore appeal remains pending as legal team disputes reports on contempt case
Byju Raveendran’s legal team said reports mischaracterised a Singapore court ruling. The High Court rejected only a stay request, while his substantive appeal against the civil contempt order remains pending before the Court of Appeal.
Byju Raveendran’s legal team has issued a clarification after media reports suggested that the Byju’s founder had failed in an attempt to overturn a Singapore court order that sentenced him to six months in jail.
The statement argued that those reports blur the distinction between two separate legal proceedings and said the substantive appeal against a civil contempt finding has not yet been heard.
According to the statement, the Singapore High Court hearing on July 9 was limited to an application seeking a temporary stay of an earlier civil contempt order while an appeal is considered by the Singapore Court of Appeal. The High Court declined that stay application, but did not rule on the underlying appeal, which remains pending.
The clarification was issued after reports stated that Raveendran had lost a bid to overturn the order. The legal team contended that such descriptions are inaccurate because the court did not consider the merits of the appeal itself.
“The High Court declined the application for a stay. It did not hear, decide or reject Mr 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 statement said.
It further argued that a stay application and an appeal are legally distinct. A stay temporarily suspends the effect of an order, while an appeal asks a higher court to review whether the original decision should stand.
J. Michael McNutt, Senior Litigation Advisor to Byju Raveendran and the founders at Lazareff Le Bars, said there had been no substantive change in the case.
“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,” he said.
McNutt also maintained that the contempt proceedings relate only to disputed document-disclosure obligations connected with ongoing arbitration proceedings.
According to the statement, they do not amount to a criminal conviction or findings of fraud, dishonesty, diversion of funds or personal wrongdoing by Raveendran. It added that he continues to deny breaching any court order and intends to pursue all available legal remedies.
The Singapore proceedings are one part of a wider set of legal disputes involving the former edtech giant. Once valued at about $22 billion during the pandemic-era boom in online learning, Byju’s expanded rapidly through acquisitions and overseas borrowing before running into severe financial distress. In recent years, the company has faced insolvency proceedings in India, disputes with lenders over a $1.2 billion term loan, and litigation across multiple jurisdictions involving investors and creditors.