Byju’s Founder Loses Bid to Overturn Singapore Jail Sentence
The court on July 9 declined Byju Raveendran’s application to have the sentence halted, his law firm Lazareff Le Bars said in a statement
The High Court of Singapore rejected a bid by the founder of failed education startup Byju’s to overturn a six-month jail sentence, effectively barring him from returning to the city-state unless he’s prepared to serve the term.
The court on July 9 declined Byju Raveendran’s application to have the sentence halted, his law firm Lazareff Le Bars said in a statement Tuesday. The court originally pronounced the sentence, for contempt, in May, and then granted a stay on it last month.
The rejection marks the latest setback for Raveendran, a former teacher who founded online tutor Think & Learn Pvt, widely known as Byju’s. The company turned him into a billionaire and made him one of the major success stories among a wave of Indian startups, but it later collapsed following a rapid expansion and alleged corporate governance lapses.
“Mr. Raveendran maintains that he did not breach any court order, intentionally or otherwise, and will continue to pursue every lawful remedy through the proper legal process,” J. Michael McNutt, a lawyer at Lazareff Le Bars, said in the statement.
A Singapore High Court spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Raveendran is facing claims from foreign investors around the world, including in the US where lenders are fighting to claw back losses from a $1.2 billion loan that soured.
In Singapore courts, Raveendran is being pursued by a subsidiary of the sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority, which participated in a funding round for the tech firm as it was cutting jobs and laying off staff. QIA said in a statement it welcomes the latest ruling and will continue to pursue all legal remedies against Raveendran.
Raveendran isn’t presently in Singapore and there is no certainty of when, or whether, he plans to travel to the country, McNutt said.
“In the future, should he be in, or intend to travel to, Singapore, he may appeal then and the court will deal with it,” McNutt said. “The order has no practical effect unless and until he chooses to enter Singapore.”
