Byju Raveendran Gets Breather in Qatar $235M Case, But HC Puts Aakash Shares on Hold

Karnataka High Court rejected Qatar Holding’s plea to restrain Byju’s co-founder Byju Raveendran and Byju’s Investments from transferring assets worth $235 million, including shares in Aakash Institute, the Mint reported. The order delivered on April 16 by Justice Ashok S Kinagi ruled that Qatar Holding must seek remedies before the arbitral tribunal constituted under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules. 

The high court gave partial interim relief to Qatar Holding by ruling that the status quo regarding the alienation of the disputed shares be maintained for a three-month period. 

“The petitions are rejected; however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply either before the Emergency Arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal for interim relief. Meanwhile, the interim orders, undertaking, and status quo shall continue for three months,” said the court in its ruling, according to the Mint.

Also Read: Is Byju's Making a Comeback? Raveendran’s Vow Sparks Debate

Case Background 

In 2021, Bjyu’s acquired Aakash Institute. To finance the deal, the edtech entered into a share security agreement with Qatar Holdings, backed by a personal guarantee from the co-founder. Under the agreement between Byju and Qatar Holdings, the former had an obligation to repay $300 million by March 31, 2025. However, in February last year, Qatar Holding terminated the deal, accused Bjyu’s of defaults, and demanded immediate repayment of $235.18 million. In March last year, the company also initiated arbitration proceedings at SIAC. 

Although the edtech founder disclosed his assets, Qatar Holding contested that the disclosures were incomplete, particularly related to Aakash shares. The company argued that in the beginning of the disclosure, edtech co-founder Raveendran declared the Aakash Institute shares as part of his assets but later mentioned their inclusion was a mistake. 

To seek relief over the disputed shares, Qatar Holding filed a case with the Karnataka High Court. Although Justice Kinagi ruled against Qatar Holding’s plea, he reportedly mentioned that contradictory stances taken by Raveendran reflect badly on his conduct. 

“A litigant may adopt different positions at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case... Such inconsistency reflects poorly on a party’s conduct,” Justice Kinagi said.