Court said Raj Kundra has no continuing rights over the Rajasthan Royals IPL franchise, ordered him to repay nearly US$4.94 mn and permanently restrained him from pursuing claims.
The High Court of Justice in London has ruled that businessman Raj Kundra has no continuing rights over the Rajasthan Royals Indian Premier League franchise, ordered him to repay nearly US$4.94 million and permanently restrained him from pursuing claims contrary to a settlement agreement that resolved the dispute in 2019.
The 41-page judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Griffiths on 16 July 2026, effectively brings to an end in England one of the longest-running ownership disputes arising from the fallout of the 2013 IPL betting scandal. The court ruled almost entirely in favour of ‘Emerging Media Ventures Limited’ (EMV) and its owner Manoj Badale after finding that Kundra had “no realistic prospect” of defending the claims and had failed to produce any evidence supporting allegations of fraud and misrepresentation that he had publicly levelled against the franchise’s owners.
The dispute centres on the ownership structure of Rajasthan Royals, one of the original IPL franchises.
The English court said ‘Emerging Media Ventures Limited’ (EMV), a UK company formerly known as ‘Emerging Media (IPL) Limited, is a shareholder in Mauritius-based ‘EM Sporting Holdings’ Limited, which owns ‘Royal Multisport Private Limited’, formerly ‘Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited’, the Indian company that owns the Rajasthan Royals franchise. EMV is controlled by Manoj Badale, who holds all of its voting shares.
Kundra held an indirect 11.7% stake in EM Sporting Holdings through his Bahamas-registered company, ‘Kuki Investments Limited’. The judgment notes that Kuki was removed from the Bahamas company register between January 2021 and October 2025 before being restored.
Outside the judgment, Kundra is widely known in India as the husband of Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty. He was among the franchise’s early co-owners and later became embroiled in multiple controversies, most prominently the IPL betting scandal. Separately, he has also faced criminal investigations in India in connection with alleged pornography production, allegations he has denied. Those matters, however, are not part of this judgment.
The court traced the origins of the dispute to the Supreme Court of India’s investigation into IPL betting. According to the judgment, Kundra was accused of betting on IPL matches. During the proceedings, he undertook through an affidavit that he would surrender his beneficial ownership in the Rajasthan Royals structure and recover it only if he was cleared of the allegations.
After the Supreme Court upheld the findings against him in January 2015 and the Lodha Committee later imposed sanctions, the parties executed a Share Transfer Agreement on 18 August 2015 under which Kuki transferred its 11.7% shareholding to the remaining shareholders for nominal consideration.
Disputes nevertheless resurfaced, leading to a comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed on 31 July 2019. Governed by English law, the agreement became the central document in the present litigation.
Under the settlement, Kundra and Kuki expressly acknowledged that the 2015 transfer had been validly completed, confirmed that they had permanently relinquished all rights in Rajasthan Royals and undertook never again to claim ownership, initiate proceedings relating to the franchise or make statements damaging the franchise, its shareholders or the Board of Control for Cricket in India.
In return, the shareholders agreed to pay Kundra substantial sums. EMV’s contribution amounted to US$4,937,887, part of a larger confidential settlement payment that was disclosed during the proceedings because it formed the basis of the monetary claim.
The litigation arose after Kundra publicly claimed in May 2025 that he had discovered evidence showing his stake had been undervalued when it was transferred. He sent emails demanding either restoration of his equity or additional compensation, threatened complaints before the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the Economic Offences Wing and the Enforcement Directorate, and announced plans to make public disclosures. He repeated similar allegations in WhatsApp messages and on X, Instagram and LinkedIn, accusing Rajasthan Royals’ promoters of financial misconduct and shareholder fraud.
EMV argued that these communications constituted material breaches of the Settlement Agreement because Kundra had undertaken never to assert any rights over the franchise, initiate proceedings or make statements damaging the reputation of Rajasthan Royals or its owners.
On 2 July 2025, EMV terminated the Settlement Agreement and demanded repayment of the money it had paid under its terms.
Before the final hearing, the English court had already granted interim injunctions restraining Kundra from making disparaging public statements and requiring disclosure of his assets. It also granted an interim anti-suit injunction after Kundra and Kuki initiated proceedings in Mumbai relating to the same dispute.
A significant feature of the judgment is the court’s criticism of Kundra’s conduct during the proceedings. Although he had notice of the hearing, obtained extensions of time and participated in earlier procedural stages, he neither attended the final hearing nor filed evidence supporting the allegations in his draft defence and counterclaim.
The judge held that while the pleadings alleged fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty by EMV and Badale, none of those allegations was supported by evidence despite ample opportunity to do so. As a result, the court concluded that the defence had “no realistic prospect of success.”
The court declared that the 2015 Share Transfer Agreement and the 2019 Settlement Agreement remain valid, that Kundra has no continuing ownership rights in Rajasthan Royals and that the contractual undertakings survive termination of the settlement. It ordered him to repay EMV US$4,937,887 with interest, permanently enforced the contractual restrictions and granted a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining Kundra and Kuki from pursuing proceedings elsewhere that are inconsistent with the settlement agreement.
