New Delhi, July 14, 2026
Edtech firm Byju’s on Tuesday clarified that media reports suggesting founder Byju Raveendran had failed in a bid to overturn a Singapore court order were inaccurate, asserting that his substantive appeal against the civil contempt finding remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal.
The company said the hearing before the Singapore High Court on July 9 was confined to an application seeking a temporary stay of the civil contempt order issued on May 25, 2026, while Raveendran’s appeal is heard.
According to the company, the High Court declined only the stay application and did not hear, determine or reject the substantive appeal challenging the contempt finding.
“The hearing on July 9 did not concern an application to overturn the civil contempt order dated 25 May 2026. It was limited to an application requesting the General Division of the Singapore High Court to temporarily suspend (or stay) its earlier order while Raveendran’s appeal is considered by the Court of Appeal,” it said.
“It is therefore incorrect to state that Raveendran has lost a bid to overturn the order or sentence. The bid to overturn the underlying contempt finding remains live before the Court of Appeal,” the company said in a statement.
It added that Raveendran continues to have the option of seeking appropriate interim relief before the Court of Appeal.
The company also said some media reports conflated the stay application with the substantive appeal, even though the two are legally distinct proceedings.
It further disputed reports claiming that the latest order had effectively prevented Raveendran from returning to Singapore, stating that the legal position had been overstated.
Quoting J. Michael McNutt, Senior Litigation Advisor to Byju Raveendran and the founders at Lazareff Le Bars, the company said there had been “no new development of substance” in the matter.
“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,” he said.
The dismissal is about timing, not merits. 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 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,” McNutt mentioned.
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 Raveendran. It has no implication outside of Singapore, he explained.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
