UK Court Orders Raj Kundra To Repay $4.94 Million To EMV In Rajasthan Royals Shareholding Dispute

The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales has recently ordered Indian businessman Raj Kundra to repay US$4,937,887 to Emerging Media Ventures Ltd. (EMV) in a dispute over his former 11.7% stake in the Rajasthan Royals IPL franchise.

The court held there was no real prospect of Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. resisting findings that Kundra had materially breached the parties' 2019 settlement agreement.

Justice Griffiths held that EMV had validly terminated the settlement agreement through its July 2, 2025 notice. That entitled EMV to recover the amount it had paid under the agreement. The court also granted a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. from pursuing proceedings in India concerning the settlement agreement and the former shareholding dispute.

The court held, "There will therefore be summary judgment for payment of US$4,937,887 (the EMV Settlement Sum) plus simple interest at the US Prime Rate, from 4 July 2025, to the date of judgment. Interest will continue to accrue at the same rate after judgment."

The dispute traces back to Kundra's former interest in Sporting Holdings, the holding company of the Rajasthan Royals franchise. The court found that Kundra's family trust acquired an 11.7% stake in the company in 2009 through Kuki Investments Ltd.

The Supreme Court of India held on January 22, 2015, that Kundra was guilty of betting on IPL matches. The stake was subsequently transferred under a Share Transfer Agreement dated August 18, 2015.

The parties executed a settlement agreement on July 31, 2019. EMV terminated the agreement on July 2, 2025. It alleged repeated breaches through social media posts, communications with individuals connected to the franchise and legal proceedings initiated in India.

Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. alleged in their draft defence and counterclaim that the Share Transfer Agreement and the settlement agreement had been induced by misrepresentation. They also sought to rescind both agreements. The court noted that no evidence had been filed to support those allegations.

The court concluded there was no real prospect of Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. resisting findings that Kundra had materially breached the settlement agreement. It also held there was no real prospect of Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. successfully challenging EMV's right to terminate the agreement.

The court held, "There is therefore no real prospect on the evidence before me of the defendants resisting a finding (a) that Mr Kundra was in material breach of the Settlement Agreement and (b) a finding that EMV was entitled, under clause 8 (quoted in para above), to terminate it immediately. The Termination Letter of 2 July 2025 exercised that right. The requirements for summary judgment on this point under CPR PART 24 24 have been met"

EMV also sought to enforce the indemnity clause in the settlement agreement. The court observed that the agreement entitled EMV to an indemnity. It held that the amount payable would be determined separately by a Master after assessing liability and quantum.

The court observed there was no evidence supporting Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd.'s allegations that the shares were held on trust or that fiduciary obligations had been breached. It held those allegations had no real prospect of succeeding. The express terms of both the Share Transfer Agreement and the settlement agreement supported EMV's claim.

The court observed, "The reference to 'the Shareholders' includes persons who are not party to this action, but that is not a bar to the declaration. EMV is one of the Shareholders and there is no evidence before the court to support a case that any shareholder took shares on trust or subject to fiduciary duties. The express terms both of the Share Transfer Agreement and of the Settlement Agreement support the proposed declaration."

EMV also argued that proceedings commenced by Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai and the Bombay High Court breached the settlement agreement and undermined the English proceedings.

The court accepted EMV's contention. It held that a permanent anti-suit injunction was necessary to protect the English proceedings. The court further observed that the relief was justified even though the settlement agreement contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.

The court held, "Those points are conclusive in favour of the grant of an injunction to protect the claimants' legitimate interest in the English proceedings and to meet a clear need for such protection. This is quite apart from the contractual right, although the jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement is not exclusive. An anti-suit injunction is necessary in the interests of justice in this case and it is consistent with the comity which rightly exists between courts of different jurisdictions."

The court directed Kundra to repay US$4,937,887 to EMV with interest at the US Prime Rate from July 4, 2025. It also permanently restrained Raj Kundra and Kuki Investments Ltd. from pursuing proceedings in India concerning the settlement agreement and the former shareholding dispute.

For Claimant: Adam Speker KC, Emma Horner, and Nicholas Wright (instructed by Level Law Ltd)