Byju’s Alpha, the bankrupt U.S. borrowing arm of Byju’s, says Byju Raveendran, Divya Gokulnath, and former director Riju Ravindran are liable for $533M in missing loan proceeds. A Delaware bankruptcy court found Ravindran liable in 2025. Byju’s Alpha now seeks to enforce a Dubai court’s costs order against him in India, with a Delhi High Court hearing set for November 23, 2026.
Latest development Sep 25, 2026
On September 25, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued notice to Riju Ravindran on Byju’s Alpha’s enforcement petition. The petition seeks to enforce a costs order of about $840,000 from the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts as a foreign decree. Ravindran disputes that the petition can be brought, and the court will hear it on November 23, 2026.
Why it matters
The Delhi High Court will decide whether a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts costs order can be enforced in India as a foreign decree. The answer affects Byju’s Alpha’s efforts to recover from Riju Ravindran, who faces a $540.6M U.S. judgment.
Background
Byju’s Alpha was set up in 2021 to borrow a $1.2B U.S. term loan for Think & Learn, the parent of Indian edtech company Byju’s. In 2022, Byju’s Alpha wired $533M of the loan proceeds to Camshaft Capital, a Miami hedge fund, for a limited partnership interest. In 2023, that interest was transferred to another Byju’s entity, Inspilearn, without payment. After defaults, the lenders’ agent, GLAS Trust, took control in 2023 and installed Timothy Pohl, who found that the $533M was missing. Byju’s Alpha filed for Chapter 11 in Delaware in February 2024.
On February 27, 2025, Judge Brendan Shannon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted partial summary judgment against Riju Ravindran, Camshaft, and Think & Learn. He found fraudulent transfers of the $533M and a breach of fiduciary duty by Ravindran, Byju’s Alpha’s former sole director. The court entered judgment against Ravindran on March 14, 2025, and refused to stay its enforcement in August 2025. In a separate action filed on April 9, 2025, Byju’s Alpha sued Byju Raveendran, Divya Gokulnath, and Anita Kishore. It claims breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, conversion, and civil conspiracy.
On November 20, 2025, the bankruptcy court entered a default against Raveendran as a sanction for discovery failures and awarded about $1.07B. On December 8, 2025, it removed the damages award because the parties had agreed to defer damages, and it set a further damages phase starting in January 2026. Raveendran, who denies wrongdoing, has appealed several orders to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On August 4, 2026, the district court declined to hear an interlocutory appeal because the issues overlapped with Raveendran’s pending appeal.
On May 21, 2025, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts granted a freezing order and an order to provide information against Raveendran and Gokulnath, without notice. The court continued the order on July 22, 2025, until further order. On January 23, 2026, the DIFC court rejected Ravindran’s challenge to proceedings to enforce the $540.6M U.S. judgment against him and ordered him to pay about $840,000 in costs. After the DIFC Courts issued a penal notice on September 8, 2026, Byju’s Alpha asked the Delhi High Court to enforce the costs order in India as a foreign decree. On September 25, 2026, the Delhi court issued notice to Ravindran, who disputes that the petition can be brought, and listed a hearing for November 23, 2026.
Timeline 14 events
-
Scheduled hearingDelhi High Court hears Byju’s Alpha’s enforcement petition
The court listed the execution petition against Riju Ravindran for a further hearing.
-
EnforcementDelhi High Court issues notice on Byju’s Alpha’s enforcement petition
Justice Manoj Jain sought Ravindran’s response to the petition to enforce the DIFC costs order as a foreign decree under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ravindran disputes that it can be brought.
-
EnforcementDIFC Courts issue a penal notice on Riju Ravindran’s costs order
The notice stated that the January 23, 2026, costs order was final and executory.
-
AppealDelaware federal court denies Raveendran’s interlocutory appeal bid
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware declined to hear an interlocutory appeal of bankruptcy court rulings. It found that the issues overlapped with Raveendran’s pending appeal.
-
AppealByju Raveendran appeals bankruptcy court orders to the District Court
The appeal, In re BYJU’s Alpha, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00375, is before Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
CourtListener: In re BYJU's Alpha, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00375 (D. Del.)
-
JudgmentDIFC court rejects Riju Ravindran’s challenge to U.S. judgment enforcement
The court rejected his challenge to proceedings to enforce the $540.6M U.S. Bankruptcy Court judgment against him and ordered him to pay about $840,000 in costs within 14 days.
-
OrderDelaware court schedules new damages phase for January 2026
After vacating the damages component of its default ruling, the bankruptcy court set a further phase to determine damages against Raveendran starting in January 2026.
Delaware court reverses $1 billion judgment against Byju Raveendran
-
JudgmentDelaware court removes the damages award from its default ruling
The court amended its opinion because the parties had agreed to defer damages, leaving the default in place, and ordered briefing on damages.
-
AppealRaveendran says he will appeal $1.07B default judgment
Byju Raveendran denied the allegations underlying the default judgment and said he would challenge it before the U.S. court.
Byju Raveendran to appeal US court's 'default judgment' over $1 billion liability
-
JudgmentDelaware court enters default judgment against Byju Raveendran
The court granted default as a sanction for his failure to comply with discovery orders and awarded about $1.07B. Raveendran said he would appeal.
Quinn EmanuelGulf News: Byju's founder liable for over $1 billion default judgment, plans appeal
-
JudgmentDIFC court freezes assets of Byju Raveendran and Divya Gokulnath
Justice Rene Le Miere granted a freezing order and an order to provide information without notice. On July 22, 2025, the court continued the order until further order.
-
FilingByju’s Alpha sues Byju Raveendran and Divya Gokulnath in Delaware
The adversary proceeding claims breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, conversion, and civil conspiracy, and seeks an accounting. Anita Kishore is also a defendant.
-
JudgmentDelaware bankruptcy court finds Riju Ravindran liable over $533M transfers
Judge Brendan Shannon granted partial summary judgment against Ravindran, Camshaft, and Think & Learn, finding fraudulent transfers and a breach of Ravindran’s fiduciary duties as a director.
The News MinuteCourtListener: Byju's Alpha, Inc. v. Camshaft Capital Fund, LP
-
OtherByju’s Alpha transfers $533M in loan proceeds to Camshaft
The roughly $533M came from a $1.2B term loan and went to Camshaft Capital Fund. Lenders say the money was never recovered.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the Delhi High Court allow Byju’s Alpha’s petition to execute the DIFC costs order against Riju Ravindran to proceed by April 30, 2028?
- Delhi court lets execution proceed45%
- Still pending on April 30, 202835%
- Delhi court rejects the petition12%
- Ravindran pays or settles costs6%
- Byju’s Alpha withdraws petition2%
- Resolves by
- Apr 30, 2028in 18 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Delhi High Court is more likely than not to let execution of the roughly $840,000 DIFC costs order proceed, at 45%, by April 30, 2028. India notified the UAE as a reciprocating territory in 2020, which supports maintainability. Slow Indian execution dockets make a still-pending outcome the main alternative, at 35%.
How it resolves. Resolves on public records of Ex.P No. 77 of 2026 (Delhi High Court) as of April 30, 2028. “Delhi court lets execution proceed” if the court rejects Ravindran’s maintainability objections or orders execution steps such as attachment or asset disclosure. “Delhi court rejects the petition” if it dismisses the petition as not maintainable or refuses execution. “Ravindran pays or settles costs” if the record or credible reports show payment or a settlement ending the petition. “Byju’s Alpha withdraws petition” if it is withdrawn without payment or settlement. Otherwise “Still pending on April 30, 2028.”
Reasoning
Starting point. Section 44A CPC petitions in Indian High Courts to execute money decrees from notified reciprocating territories: Roughly 70% to 80% of contested Section 44A petitions from notified territories survive maintainability objections, but rulings often take one to three years.
Contested Section 44A petitions from notified reciprocating territories usually survive maintainability challenges, roughly 70% to 80% of the time, though rulings often take one to three years. India’s 2020 notification covering UAE courts supports Byju’s Alpha’s position, and a costs order is a sum of money rather than a tax or penalty. The DIFC penal notice describing the January 23, 2026, order as final and executory strengthens the conclusiveness showing. Ravindran’s objection to maintainability is not detailed in the record. He may argue that the costs order is merely ancillary to enforcing a U.S. judgment, and the U.S. is not a reciprocating territory. That theory and natural justice objections under Section 13 rarely defeat execution, so outright rejection sits at 12%. The larger risk is delay, because Indian execution petitions routinely face adjournments, written objections, and appeals, so still pending holds 35%. Payment or settlement is unlikely given Ravindran’s sustained resistance to the $540.6 million judgment across forums.
UAE notified as reciprocating territory under Section 44A in 2020 · Delhi High Court docket pace and frequent adjournments · DIFC penal notice confirms costs order is final and executory · Ravindran’s undisclosed grounds for disputing maintainability · Ravindran’s consistent resistance to enforcement across three jurisdictions
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 18, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made