Setback for Byjus – Singapore court declines plea to stay jail term

The clarification came after a hearing before the General Division of the Singapore High Court on July 9. According to the statement, the court did not hear or decide Raveendran’s appeal against the civil contempt order passed on May 25. The hearing dealt only with an application seeking a temporary suspension of that order until the Singapore Court of Appeal decides the main appeal.

The High Court declined the request to suspend the order. However, the legal team said this decision should not be treated as a rejection of the appeal itself. It said the substantive appeal remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal and has not yet been heard.

What did Singapore High Court actually decide?

The lawyers said the July 9 proceedings focused only on a stay application. A stay would have temporarily paused the effect of the earlier contempt order while the appeal moved forward.

According to the clarification, a stay application and an appeal are legally different proceedings. It said some reports stated in their headlines that Raveendran had failed to overturn the contempt order, even though the reports themselves acknowledged that the High Court only refused to grant a temporary stay.

The legal team said that the appeal challenging the contempt finding remains alive before the Court of Appeal. It also said Raveendran remains free to seek interim relief from the appellate court if circumstances require it.

The clarification also disputed reports suggesting that the High Court’s decision had effectively stopped Raveendran from returning to Singapore. It said such claims overstated the legal position because he can still seek a suspension of the order before the Court of Appeal. The statement also said the order has no practical effect unless he chooses to enter Singapore.

What Byju Raveendran’s Litigation Advisor said

The statement from J Michael McNutt, senior litigation advisor to Byju Raveendran and the founders at Lazareff Le Bars, said the High Court’s decision addressed only the timing of the stay request and not the merits of the contempt finding.

According to McNutt, the court found there was no immediate issue because Raveendran is not in Singapore and there is no certainty about when or whether he intends to travel there. He said Raveendran may seek appropriate relief if he plans to enter Singapore in the future.

The clarification also stated that the underlying proceedings involve civil contempt arising from disputed document disclosure obligations in ongoing arbitration proceedings. It said the order is not a criminal conviction and does not amount to a finding on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The legal team also said the contempt order does not include any finding of fraud, dishonesty, diversion of funds or personal wrongdoing against Raveendran. It added that he maintains he did not breach any court order and will continue to pursue all legal remedies before the Singapore Court of Appeal.