UK Court orders Raj Kundra to pay $4.94 million to EMV
It ruled that Badale’s UK-based company, Emerging Media Ventures Ltd (EMV), had validly terminated the 2019 settlement agreement between the parties and that the amount under the agreement should be paid immediately.
The dispute concerned the 11.7% stake held by Kundra’s Kuki Investments Ltd in Mauritius-based EM Sporting Holdings, the EMV subsidiary that controls the IPL franchise. In its decision on Thursday, the court also granted a permanent anti-suit injunction preventing Kundra and Kuki Investments from pursuing relevant claims outside of UK proceedings.
The court ruled that Kundra transferred his shares to EMV under a share transfer agreement made in 2015 and, under the settlement agreement made in 2019, agreed not to make any future claims on the shares in exchange for a settlement payment.
Trump Media offered $100,000 monthly fee for ‘fastest’ publication of US president’s posts: Report
According to the decision, EMV terminated the settlement agreement in July 2025 after Kundra alleged repeated material breaches. The legal dispute came before media reports that EMV was exploring the sale of the Rajasthan Royals. Earlier this year, the Lakshmi Mittal family and Adar Poonawalla of the Serum Institute of India acquired a majority stake in the Rajasthan Royals at a valuation of $1.65 billion. Following the deal, Badale will hold a minority stake.
The UK court ruled that the termination was valid and that Kundra had no chance of successfully defending the contractual claims. The US and Iran are increasing attacks in the Middle East; bridges and water facility were hit
Judge Griffiths restrained Kundra and his company from filing suit in the National Company Law Tribunal of India or any court outside the UK in this regard.
Kundra had approached the NCLT alleging that EMV had oppressed and mismanaged him over his stake in the Mauritius company. He had also approached the Bombay High Court seeking an anti-suit injunction restraining the UK court from filing suit in another jurisdiction.
The judge held that the petition in the NCLT and the proceedings in the Bombay High Court on the matter were in breach of the contractual undertakings of the parties. The judgment stated that the proceedings in India were intended to litigate disputes whose natural forum was England and Wales, where proceedings were already pending. It was also stated that the Bombay HC action was intended to “disrupt or disrespect the orders passed by this court”.
