Introduction:
In a remarkable order reinforcing the rights of employees and the sanctity of arbitral awards, the Bombay High Court, in Prashant Singh v. WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Arbitration Petition (L) No. 26263 of 2025, directed the popular online coding platform WhiteHat Jr, a subsidiary of the financially troubled Byju’s, to deposit or secure a sum of ₹80.35 lakh awarded in favor of its former employee, Prashant Singh. The order was passed by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan on September 22, 2025, after the Court found that the company and its directors—Byju Raveendran and Riju Raveendran—had failed to comply with earlier arbitration directives and had shown no intention to honor the award. The Court granted ad-interim reliefs, directing the respondents to either deposit the full amount with the Court or furnish a bank guarantee, while also restraining them from transferring or selling any assets until the award is fully enforced. The case arose from Singh’s abrupt termination as Head of Global Teacher Recruitment in August 2023, one day after he refused to sign a release letter waiving his financial entitlements. This dispute ultimately went to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in Singh’s favor on June 30, 2025, awarding him unpaid salary, incentives, penalties, and costs. The High Court’s intervention came after the company stopped participating in the arbitration proceedings and failed to comply with earlier directions, raising concerns about potential asset diversion amid the parent company’s ongoing insolvency.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Prashant Singh):
Appearing through Advocate Naira Jejeebhoy along with Advocate Geetika Kopur, instructed by Advocate Biswadeep Chakravarty, the petitioner Prashant Singh argued that there was an urgent and pressing need for judicial intervention to safeguard his awarded dues. Singh recounted that he had joined WhiteHat Jr in May 2020 as Head of Global Teacher Recruitment, tasked with overseeing large-scale hiring and management of educators across multiple geographies. His contract was later amended in August 2020 to incorporate performance-linked incentives, reflecting the company’s acknowledgment of his strategic role. However, after years of committed service, his employment was suddenly terminated on August 1, 2023, without notice, and just a day after he refused to sign a release document that would have forced him to forgo legitimate financial claims. Singh submitted that such conduct constituted an unfair labor practice and a breach of employment obligations.
He further explained that after his unlawful termination, he invoked the arbitration clause embedded in his employment contract. During the arbitration, he produced documentary evidence of unpaid salary, incentive entitlements, and damages for wrongful termination. The arbitrator, after examining the evidence, passed an award on June 30, 2025, directing the company to pay ₹80.35 lakh, which included all dues, penalties, and legal costs. However, the company, despite being represented initially, stopped participating in the arbitration proceedings from February 2025 onwards and ignored all directions issued by the arbitrator. Singh emphasized that such defiance not only reflected the company’s disregard for the rule of law but also justified judicial protection of the award through interim relief.
Singh highlighted before the Court that WhiteHat Jr and its directors were in a precarious financial condition due to the insolvency proceedings against their parent company, Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju’s). He alleged that the promoters, including Byju and Riju Raveendran, were siphoning off assets and funds to related entities and not meeting their statutory and contractual obligations to employees and creditors. He referred to the company’s significant holdings, including Byju Raveendran’s 17% stake in Aakash Educational Services Ltd. and other intellectual property assets, asserting that these were being shielded or potentially transferred beyond reach. Singh expressed concern that unless the Court intervened swiftly, there was a substantial risk that the respondents would divert or conceal their assets, rendering the arbitration award illusory.
Relying on Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers courts to grant interim protection for enforcement of arbitral awards, Singh sought an order directing the respondents to either deposit the awarded sum in court or furnish a bank guarantee for the same. He also requested disclosure of all movable and immovable assets, including shares, bank accounts, and IP assets, both in India and abroad. Singh emphasized that enforcement of the award was being obstructed intentionally and that the respondents’ non-appearance before both the arbitrator and the High Court demonstrated mala fide intent to evade payment. His counsel argued that equity, justice, and good conscience demanded urgent protection of the award amount, especially since the petitioner had been forced to litigate for what was rightfully his after years of dedicated service.
Arguments of the Respondents (WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Directors):
The respondents—WhiteHat Jr and its directors, Byju and Riju Raveendran—did not appear during the hearing despite being duly served with notices. However, their earlier submissions on record were considered by the Court to assess their standpoint. From the available documents, it appeared that the respondents disputed the petitioner’s claims of wrongful termination and denied any outstanding dues. The company contended that Singh’s employment was terminated in accordance with internal policies and that his refusal to sign the release letter was inconsequential, as the separation process was based on non-performance and restructuring. They argued that the petitioner’s claim for incentives and penalties was excessive and did not align with the company’s financial performance metrics.
The respondents also argued that the arbitration award was ex parte and therefore unenforceable, as they were unable to participate in the final stages of the proceedings due to financial and operational disruptions following the parent company’s insolvency crisis. It was suggested that the ongoing financial instability had affected all subsidiaries, including WhiteHat Jr, leading to temporary communication breakdowns and resource constraints. The company maintained that the award was excessive, arbitrary, and passed without due consideration of its written submissions made earlier during the proceedings.
While there was no direct denial of the company’s financial challenges, the respondents implied that they were undergoing corporate restructuring and that liquidity constraints made it difficult to immediately discharge the award. The directors contended that their personal assets could not be targeted or frozen for a corporate liability unless there was a finding of personal misconduct or fraud, neither of which existed in this case. However, given the absence of representation and non-compliance with previous directions, the Court found that the respondents’ defense lacked credibility and failed to justify their non-cooperation with the arbitration or the court proceedings.
Court’s Judgement and Observations:
After considering the petitioner’s submissions, the documents on record, and the non-appearance of the respondents, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan delivered a firm and reasoned order safeguarding the petitioner’s rights and upholding the integrity of arbitral enforcement. The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained a valid arbitration award on June 30, 2025, which the respondents had neither challenged nor complied with. It further observed that despite multiple opportunities, the respondents had remained absent from the arbitration since February 2025, indicating a willful disregard for legal obligations.
The Bench emphasized that an arbitral award has the same effect as a decree of the court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and that the prevailing party has a legitimate expectation of timely enforcement. The Court found that the petitioner’s apprehension of asset diversion and concealment was well-founded, especially given the ongoing financial crisis within the Byju’s group. It took judicial notice of the insolvency proceedings against the parent entity, Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner’s claims of fund siphoning and asset transfers by the promoters.
In this backdrop, the Court held that interim protection was essential to prevent frustration of the award. It therefore directed the respondents to either deposit ₹80.35 lakh with the Court or furnish a bank guarantee from a scheduled commercial bank within a specified period. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Court also directed the respondents, including directors Byju and Riju Raveendran, to file detailed affidavits disclosing all their assets—movable and immovable, tangible and intangible—covering bank accounts, shareholdings, real estate, and intellectual property both in India and abroad. The Court further restrained them from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party interests in any of their assets until the award was enforced and the petitioner’s dues were secured.
Justice Sundaresan observed that such a measure was necessary to maintain the credibility of the arbitral process and to ensure that the victorious party was not left remediless due to corporate maneuvering. The Court underscored that Section 9 of the Arbitration Act empowers courts to protect the subject matter of arbitration and preserve the efficacy of the final award, particularly in situations where a party’s conduct demonstrates bad faith or deliberate non-compliance.
The Bench further noted that WhiteHat Jr, though an independent corporate entity, was integrally linked to Byju’s group, and its financial distress could not be ignored when evaluating the risk of dissipation of assets. The Court, therefore, extended its restraining order to include the directors personally, holding that directors have a fiduciary duty to ensure compliance with judicial and arbitral directions and cannot escape liability by invoking the corporate veil when there is evidence of mala fide conduct or non-cooperation.
The Court clarified that the present order was ad-interim in nature, meaning that it would operate until the next hearing scheduled for November 27, 2025, or until further orders. However, the underlying message was unmistakable: corporate insolvency and restructuring cannot be used as a shield to avoid compliance with arbitral awards, especially when they pertain to employee dues.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that the enforcement of arbitral awards is a cornerstone of India’s pro-arbitration regime and must be protected through prompt judicial intervention when faced with non-cooperation or evasion. The Court’s strong language and comprehensive directions reflect a growing judicial trend toward holding corporations accountable for their employment and contractual obligations, particularly in the dynamic but volatile ed-tech sector.