The High Court has ordered businessman Raj Kundra to repay almost $5 million after ruling that he repeatedly breached a settlement agreement over his former stake in IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals.
The High Court in London has ordered businessman Raj Kundra to repay almost $5 million after ruling that he repeatedly breached a settlement agreement designed to draw a line under his controversial exit from Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket franchise Rajasthan Royals.
In a judgment handed down yesterday (16 July), Mr Justice Griffiths granted summary judgment in favour of Emerging Media Ventures (EMV) and its owner Manoj Badale, finding that Kundra had no realistic prospect of defending claims arising from a series of emails, social media posts and other communications accusing the franchise’s owners of fraud and threatening legal, regulatory and media action. The judge also reaffirmed that carefully negotiated settlement agreements containing non-disparagement and no-claims clauses will generally be enforced where both parties have had the benefit of legal advice.
The background
Rajasthan Royals is one of the IPL’s original franchises. The IPL has grown into one of the world’s richest sporting competitions, with franchise valuations now running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Kundra’s involvement dates back to 2009, when his company, Kuki Investments, acquired an indirect 11.7% shareholding in the franchise’s holding company. However, after India’s Supreme Court found in 2015 that he had bet on IPL matches, he was required to relinquish that interest. A share transfer agreement executed later that year transferred the shares to the remaining shareholders for nominal consideration, reflecting undertakings Kundra had given to the Indian court and public statements that he would forfeit his stake.
The parties sought to resolve the resulting disputes through a confidential settlement agreement in July 2019. Under its terms, Kundra received substantial payments, including $4,937,887 from EMV, in exchange for confirming that he no longer had any interest in the franchise, waiving any future claims and undertaking not to commence proceedings, engage in communications damaging to the franchise or its owners, or make disparaging public statements. The agreement also provided that any material breach would entitle the shareholders to terminate the agreement immediately and demand repayment of the settlement monies.
According to the claimants, that bargain unravelled in May 2025. Kundra sent emails and WhatsApp messages alleging that he had been defrauded of the true value of his former shareholding, while posts on X, Instagram and LinkedIn accused a key Rajasthan Royals promoter of financial misconduct, money laundering and shareholder manipulation. He also threatened to file complaints with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and law enforcement agencies, and to take his allegations to the media, unless a further financial settlement could be reached.
EMV terminated the settlement agreement in July 2025, demanded repayment of the settlement sum and issued these proceedings in the High Court. The claim alleged that Kundra had breached the settlement agreement by making a series of disparaging public statements.
The proceedings
EMV applied for summary judgment. The defendants served a draft defence and counterclaim alleging, among other things, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and that parts of the settlement agreement were contrary to public policy. However, they filed no evidence in support of those allegations and did not attend the June 2026 hearing despite having been given notice and the opportunity to participate remotely. Mr Justice Griffiths therefore determined the application in their absence.
The judge rejected the defendants’ public policy arguments, relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mionis v Democratic Press SA [2017]. Quoting that judgment, he observed that where litigation is settled “with the benefit of expert legal advice on both sides”, it would require “a strong case” before a court refused to enforce the bargain. He also endorsed Lady Justice Sharp’s reminder that “pacta sunt servanda” [agreements must be kept] is itself “a rule of public policy of considerable importance”.
Mr Justice Griffiths found there was no evidential basis for the defendants’ allegations that they had been induced to enter into either the 2015 share transfer agreement or the 2019 settlement agreement by fraud or unconscionable conduct. Instead, the unchallenged evidence showed that Kundra had entered into both agreements freely while represented by solicitors and with the benefit of independent legal advice.
He therefore ordered Kundra and Kuki Investments, jointly and severally, to repay EMV $4,937,887 plus interest calculated from 4 July 2025. The judge also declared that both the share transfer and settlement agreements remain binding and made permanent an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from pursuing proceedings in India that fell within the scope of the settlement agreement.
The parties
In Emerging Media Ventures and another (claimants) v Ripu Sudan ‘Raj’ Kundra and another (defendants) the claimants were represented by Adam Speker KC of 5RB, and Emma Horner and Nicholas Wright of 4 Stone Buildings, instructed by Level Law. The defendants did not appear and were unrepresented.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source iclg.com ’
