A Singapore court sentenced Byju’s founder Byju Raveendran to six months in jail for contempt of court over alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders, but the entrepreneur said the ruling was “procedural,” denied wrongdoing and that he planned to appeal.

Bloomberg reported that the Singapore court directed Raveendran to surrender to authorities, pay legal costs of S$90,000 (about ₹6,731,102) and furnish documents proving his ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte, a corporate entity that held shares in a related company.

The ruling marks the most serious legal setback yet for the founder of Byju’s, once one of India’s most valuable startups, which has been battling investor disputes, debt litigation and operational turmoil following a sharp post-pandemic downturn.

The legal action in Singapore has been initiated by a subsidiary of Qatar Investment Authority, which had invested in the company during a period when Byju’s was cutting jobs and restructuring operations, according to the report.

Moreover, Qatar Holdings was represented by law firm Drew & Napier, while Byju’s Investments was represented by Fervent Chambers in the matter.

How India’s Byju’s went from startup star to facing insolvency

It was not immediately clear whether Raveendran was in Singapore at the time of the order.

The development comes months after the Delaware Court in December 2025 reversed its earlier $1 billion judgment against Raveendran after reviewing fresh submissions filed through a motion seeking correction of a November 20 ruling.

The Delaware Court had then observed that damages had not been properly determined and ordered a fresh phase of proceedings to decide whether any damages were owed.

Raveendran’s legal team had alleged that GLAS Trust and lenders withheld or misrepresented key information during proceedings, which they claimed contributed to the collapse of the edtech business and erosion of enterprise value.

Raveendran says priority to support constructive resolution

In a statement issued after the ruling, Raveendran said settlement discussions with lenders and investors, including GLAS Trust and QIA, were already nearing conclusion and described the latest legal action as an unnecessary escalation.

“The parties have also acknowledged that there has been no wrongdoing on my part or on the part of the other founders,” he said.

He said the Singapore ruling was “a procedural contempt of court order” linked to disputes over document disclosure and “not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, or wrongdoing on the merits.” Raveendran added that he had chosen “resolution over confrontation” and said he intended to challenge what he described as a “false and one-sided narrative.”

Byju’s Learning app delisted from Google Play Store

“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,” Raveendran said, expressing disappointment that the recent Singapore court matter was pursued and reported in a manner that creates a misleading impression about him.

This, especially at a time when all key parties have almost concluded the settlement discussions, he claimed.

“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 said.

He went on to state that he had not been actively contesting several court proceedings in recent months precisely because “the parties were working towards a comprehensive settlement.” “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,” he said.

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.”

With inputs from IANS, PTI