A Singapore court sentenced Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran to six months’ imprisonment for contempt over alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders, while directing payment of legal costs and ownership documents, though Raveendran denied wrongdoing, described the ruling as procedural and announced plans to appeal against it.
A Singapore court has sentenced Byju Raveendran, the founder of Byju’s, to six months in jail for contempt of court, citing alleged failure to comply with disclosure orders. Raveendran, however, said the decision was “procedural,” denied any wrongdoing, and stated that he intends to appeal.
The court ordered Raveendran to surrender to authorities, pay legal costs of $90,000 (about Rs 6,731,102), and provide documents to show his ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte, a company that held shares in a related entity.
The ruling is described as the founder’s most serious legal setback yet, coming at a time when Byju’s once among India’s most valuable startups has been dealing with investor disputes, debt-related litigation, and significant operational instability after a steep post-pandemic decline.
The Singapore case was reportedly filed by a subsidiary of the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), which invested in the company during a period when Byju’s was cutting jobs and restructuring operations, according to the report. In the matter, Qatar Holdings was represented by Drew & Napier, while Byju’s Investments was represented by Fervent Chambers. It was not immediately confirmed whether Raveendran was physically in Singapore when the order was passed.
Earlier court reversal in Delaware
The development follows months after a Delaware Court decision in December 2025 that reversed an earlier $1 billion judgment against Raveendran. The reversal came after the court considered additional submissions made through a motion seeking correction of a ruling dated November 20.
The Delaware court said that damages had not been properly determined and directed a fresh set of proceedings to decide whether any damages would be due.
Raveendran’s legal team had argued that GLAS Trust and certain lenders withheld or misrepresented important information during earlier proceedings claims they said contributed to the collapse of the edtech business and the erosion of its enterprise value.
Raveendran: settlement and constructive resolution
After the Singapore verdict, Raveendran issued a statement saying that settlement talks with lenders and investors including GLAS Trust and QIA were close to completion, and he described the latest legal action as unnecessary escalation.
He said,
“The parties have also acknowledged that there has been no wrongdoing on my part or on the part of the other founders,”
He added that the Singapore decision was “a procedural contempt of court order” related to document disclosure and “not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, or wrongdoing on the merits.” He further stated that he chose “resolution over confrontation” and planned to challenge what he described as a “false and one-sided narrative.”
Expressing disappointment that the matter was pursued and reported in a way that, in his view, misrepresents him, Raveendran said,
“The lenders, including GLAS Trust and QIA, as well as other stakeholders, have been in discussions with the founders and other parties. A settlement has been agreed in principle, with only a few residual minor issues left to be finalised between certain parties. I have no role in those remaining issues,”
He said this was particularly troubling given that the major parties had essentially reached the point of concluding settlement talks.
He said,
“As part of the settlement discussions, the parties have also acknowledged that there has been no wrongdoing on my part or on the part of the other founders. That is why it is deeply unfortunate that this matter is being used to create a contrary public narrative at this sensitive stage,”
He also stated that he had not been actively contesting several court cases in recent months because the parties were working toward a broad settlement.
He said,
“I have always maintained that I acted in good faith and in the best interests of Byju’s, its employees, students and stakeholders. I have also placed on record that neither I nor any of the founders personally received any portion of the disputed funds, and that the funds were used for legitimate business purposes,”
His statement further said:
“Even today, my priority is to support a constructive resolution and avoid saying anything that may affect the ongoing settlement process. However, I cannot allow a false and one-sided narrative to go uncontested and I strongly reject any such incorrect portrayal.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE