top of page

Shilpa Shetty Denies Role in Raj Kundra’s ₹60 Crore Fraud Case; Bombay High Court Demands Affidavit

Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty has formally denied any substantive connection to her husband Raj Kundra’s company in a high-stakes ₹60 crore fraud suit, asserting in the Bombay High Court that she was only a nominal director with no active role. The court, however, was not persuaded and denied her plea to cancel a lookout notice against her, while insisting she submit an affidavit detailing her involvement before it considers any travel plea.


According to court filings, Shilpa argued that she never participated in the company’s decision-making and that her name was used in a figurehead capacity. She requested that the high court remove her name from the lookout notice, which prevents her from leaving India without court permission.

But the bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, refused to grant the cancellation. They directed that if she wishes to travel abroad, she must first cooperate with the investigations — including by submitting an affidavit and appearing as a government witness if required.

In addition, the court has asked Shilpa and Raj Kundra to provide a detailed affidavit justifying any foreign travel, labeling it as a “business trip,” and to deposit ₹60 crore as a security measure before granting exit permission. The move reflects the court’s insistence on greater financial transparency before allowing them international mobility.

This legal development comes amid escalating scrutiny of the couple’s financial dealings. Earlier, the Mumbai Police issued a Lookout Circular (LOC) against them, effectively barring their departure while the fraud case proceeds.

Shilpa and Raj Kundra have denied allegations of wrongdoing, framing the disputed transactions as legitimate and non-criminal in nature. Their lawyers have argued that the matter was resolved earlier through legal channels like the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and that no fraud was involved.

 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating*
bottom of page