Preity Zinta’s suit against firm co-directors Mohit Burman, Ness Wadia junked

The Civil Judge, Chandigarh, Kaushal Kumar Yadav, today dismissed a civil suit filed by Preity Zinta, film actress and one of the directors of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, against firm directors Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia. In a suit filed before the court she prayed to declare the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the company, which was held on April, 21, 2025, as illegal and invalid. She contended that the meeting was conducted by Mohit Burman with the active support of Ness Wadia in violation and total disregard of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, as well as the articles of the firm. She also prayed to restrain company, Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia from giving effect to any resolution that may have been passed at the meeting and also restrain Muneesh Khanna, from acting or holding himself as a director of the firm. However, senior advocate Anand Chhibbar assisted by advocate Amitabh Tewari appearing for Ness Wadia and NK Nanda appearing for the company opposed the suit. Chhibbar argued that application of the plaintiff lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed outright, and that as the court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the same in light of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, which bars civil courts from adjudicating matters falling within the purview of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). He said the dispute, camouflaged as a civil grievance, was in substance one of oppression and mismanagement within the meaning of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NCLT, he said. After hearing arguments, the court said: “After perusal of the entire material on record, this court is constrained to hold that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of the express statutory bar contained in Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The grievances of the plaintiff pertains substantially to oppression and mismanagement and, therefore, lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT. A civil court cannot go into the merits of the suit. In light of the pleadings, the reliefs sought, and the statutory framework under Sections 241 to 246 of Companies Act, it is evident that appropriate forum for the plaintiff to seek redressal of her grievances is the NCLT. Hence, the plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is, however, at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the NCLT, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013.” Zinta holds 23 per cent shareholding in KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited which is a private limited firm incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company holds a franchise of the Indian Premier League (IPL) and owns a cricket team known as Punjab Kings.

Chandigarh