Back
Raj Kundra Scores First Legal Win: Bombay HC Clears Path to Battle UK Injunction in Rajasthan Royals Stake Fight
In a swift procedural victory, the has granted leave to Kuki Investments Limited and Raj Kundra to file a suit challenging a UK as legally invalid. Justice Abhay Ahuja, in a single-judge bench, invoked , greenlighting the suit on the Original Side amid a high-stakes tussle over an 11.7% stake in IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals.
From NCLT Petition to Transatlantic Legal Clash
The saga unfolded in when businessman and actor Raj Kundra, through his Bahamas-based Kuki Investments, approached the in Mumbai. Filing a company petition against Emerging Media Ventures Ltd.—a UK entity controlling the stake via Mauritius-based EM Sporting Holdings—Kundra alleged serious . Claims included siphoning of funds, shady related-party transactions, and fabrication or neglect of statutory records at Royals Multisport Private Limited, the Mumbai-registered owner of Rajasthan Royals.
While the NCLT matter simmered, Emerging Media turned to the , securing an on . This order barred Kundra and Kuki from advancing the NCLT case or launching any Indian proceedings against Emerging Media, effectively freezing statutory remedies in India.
Petitioners' Pitch: Mumbai Jurisdiction and Injunction Invalidity
No counsel appeared for the respondents, leaving the field to petitioners' advocates , , and , instructed by . They argued that the proposed suit demands a declaration branding the UK injunction "," alongside permanent and interim reliefs. Crucially, they pinpointed the cause of action: Paragraph 20 of the plaint placed the material part within Bombay's jurisdiction, while Paragraph 21 noted some aspects outside—but leave under Clause XII would empower the court to try the entire suit.
Supporting paragraphs 17-19 of the petition and Paragraph 22 of the plaint underscored Mumbai's pull: Kundra's residence, Royals Multisport's registered office, ties to the Indian company, and pending NCLT proceedings all rooted the dispute locally. The UK order, they contended, was "" (non-existent in law), violative of , and unenforceable in India, prejudicing access to domestic forums.
Court's Nod to Jurisdiction: A Procedural Green Light
Justice Ahuja perused the key plaint paragraphs (20-22) and petition sections (17-19), finding the submissions persuasive. No precedents were invoked in this leave-stage order, but the ruling hinges on established Letters Patent jurisdiction for suits with mixed causes of action. By granting leave, the court affirmed its authority to adjudicate the anti-enforcement plea, setting the stage for deeper scrutiny of the foreign order's Indian enforceability.
Key Observations
"This Petition seeks leave under ."
"The proposed Suit seeks declaration that the granted by the High Court of England & Wales is in addition to permanent injunction and other interim and ad-interim reliefs."
"Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered his submissions and also having perused paragraphs 20 to 22 of the Plaint in the proposed Suit as well as paragraphs 17 to 19 in the Petition... leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent be granted."
"Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent be granted and is hereby granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Petition."
Leave Granted: Implications for Cross-Border Cricket Turf Wars
The petition stands allowed, with leave explicitly per prayer (a):
"This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to enable the Petitioners to file and pursue the above Suit against the Respondents."
This procedural step unlocks a full suit to nullify the UK injunction's operation in India, potentially shielding Kundra's NCLT push. For future cases, it signals Bombay HC's readiness to entertain anti-enforcement suits where substantial causes link to Mumbai, even against foreign anti-suit orders. As the IPL ownership battle escalates, expect more fireworks on whether English courts can throttle Indian remedies in domestic company disputes.
