Byju’s on Tuesday issued a statement saying founder Byju Raveendran’s appeal against a civil contempt order passed by a Singapore court remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal. The company issued the clarification after Bloomberg report earlier stated that Raveendran had lost his bid to overturn the order.
The company said the hearing before the General Division of the Singapore High Court on July 9 dealt only with an application to temporarily suspend, or stay, the civil contempt order issued on May 25, 2026. It said the request sought to pause the order until the Court of Appeal hears Raveendran’s challenge.
According to the company, the High Court declined the stay application. However, it did not hear, decide or reject Raveendran’s substantive appeal against the contempt finding. The company said the appeal remains pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal and is yet to be heard.
It also said reports claiming that Raveendran had lost his bid to overturn the contempt order were incorrect because the appellate court has not yet examined the merits of the case. The company said Raveendran remains entitled to pursue his appeal and seek interim relief before the Court of Appeal.
What did Singapore High Court decide?
The company said the July 9 proceedings dealt only with the request to suspend the operation of the civil contempt order while the appeal remains pending. The High Court refused to grant that request, which means the original order continues to remain in force.
Byju’s said the stay application and the substantive appeal are two separate legal proceedings and should not be treated as the same. It said the High Court’s order did not determine whether the contempt finding was correct.
The company also said suggestions that the ruling has effectively prevented Raveendran from returning to Singapore overstate the legal position. It said he can still seek a suspension of the order before the Singapore Court of Appeal if required.
According to the statement, the contempt order has no practical effect unless and until Raveendran chooses to enter Singapore.
Details of case
The company said the underlying matter relates to civil contempt arising from disputed document-disclosure obligations in ongoing arbitration proceedings. It said the proceedings do not amount to a criminal conviction and do not determine the merits of the underlying dispute.
It said the contempt order is not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, diversion of funds or personal wrongdoing against Raveendran. 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.
“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,” McNutt said.
He added that Raveendran is currently outside Singapore and there is no certainty about whether or when he plans to travel to the country. “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 said Raveendran may seek relief again if he decides to enter Singapore in the future.
“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,” he said.
McNutt said the July 9 decision does not change the status of the legal dispute. “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,” he said.
He added that the proceedings relate only to a civil contempt issue arising from disputed document-disclosure obligations in arbitration. “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,” McNutt said.
He also said Raveendran maintains that he did not violate any court order and will continue to pursue all legal remedies available to him.
