Byju Raveendran, founder of the embattled Indian ed-tech firm Byju’s, has been sentenced to six months in jail by a Singapore court for contempt over his alleged failure to comply with multiple asset-disclosure orders dating back to April 2024, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday.

The order is the most direct personal-liability ruling against Raveendran in the global tangle of cases facing Byju’s, once India’s most valuable start-up, and comes weeks after a US bankruptcy court reversed a separate $1 billion default judgment against him pending a fresh damages phase in January 2026. Raveendran has called the Singapore order “procedural” and said an appeal is being prepared.

The court instructed Raveendran to surrender himself to officials, pay SGD 90,000 (USD 70,500) and show documents to prove his legal ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte — a corporate entity holding shares in a related company, Bloomberg reported.

“We are presently comtemplating an appeal against the decision of the Honourable Court and to apply for stay of the order for committal,” Clarence Lun, a lawyer representing Byju’s, replied to Bloomberg through a statement.

A subsidiary of 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, is leading the case in the Singapore court, Bloomberg highlighted.

Raveendran, reacting to the court order, claimed it produced a misleading impression about him at a time when the key parties involved are close to concluding the settlement discussions.

He expressed his disappointment over the way in which the court order was being reported and pursued.

1/ For months, the lenders (including GLAS Trust and QIA), other stakeholders and us (the founders) have been in advanced settlement discussions. A settlement has been agreed in principle, with only minor residual issues left between certain parties – none involving me. As part…

— Byju Raveendran (@ByjuofBYJUS) May 27, 2026

Over a post on X, he said, “For months, the lenders (including GLAS Trust and QIA), other stakeholders and us (the founders) have been in advanced settlement discussions. A settlement has been agreed in principle, with only minor residual issues left between certain parties – none involving me. As part of those discussions, the parties have acknowledged there is no wrongdoing on my part or by the other founders.”

Raveendran further clarified that the only reason he did not pursue or comment on any legal proceedings against him in the recent months because the parties involved were working towards a comprehensive settlement. “All parties – the lenders and the founders – had in principle agreed not to actively pursue cases against each other, and have effectively been at a standstill for the last three months while working towards a comprehensive resolution.”

“I chose resolution over confrontation. Against that backdrop, QIA’s decision to press this matter now appears to be an unnecessary pressure tactic at a sensitive stage,” he shared over X.

Calling the matter a procedural contempt of court order, he said it arises from “disputes over document disclosure in ongoing proceedings – not a finding of fraud, dishonesty, or any wrongdoing on the merits.”

He has been directed to appear on June 15 in the matter.

In his statement, Raveendran further said, “I have always acted in good faith – for BYJU’S, its employees, its students, and everyone who built this with us. After and giving everything back, I remain committed to seeing this through to a constructive resolution. The truth doesn’t change with a headline.”

The court order deals yet another blow to Byju’s, once one of India’s biggest and most valuable startup firms.

Over the past two years, a United States bankruptcy court has ordered Raveendran to pay more than USD 1 billion, for his refusal to cooperate with legal efforts to locate almost half the proceeds from a USD 1.2 billion US term loan made in 2021, news agency PTI reported.

However, the founder, contesting the grounds of the case, said the court did not grant him 30 days which he had sought to arrange a US attorney to argue his side, the report stated.