Shilpa Shetty denies connection to Raj Kundra’s company in Rs. 60 crore fraud case; Bombay HC requests affidavit

Shilpa Shetty asked the Bombay High Court to cancel a lookout notice issued against her in a Rs. 60-crore fraud case involving her husband, Raj Kundra. She told the court that she was only a nominal director and had no real connection with her husband’s company.

However, the court, led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, rejected her request, stating, “If you want to go abroad, first become a government witness.

"Court seeks written affidavit and repaymentAccording to News18, the court asked Shilpa to provide a written affidavit by October 16. The bench said, “If you say you have no connection with the company, get your husband Raj Kundra to sign an affidavit to this effect," and also emphasized that the couple must first pay the entire ₹60 crore allegedly owed to the complainant.

The judges stated, “The fraud case is worth ₹60 crore- pay it first."Details of the fraud allegationsThe case centers on accusations that Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty, who were directors of the now-closed Best Deal TV Private Limited, allegedly cheated businessman Deepak Kothari of around ₹60 crore through a loan and investment arrangement spanning from 2015 to 2023. Deepak claims the couple convinced him to invest in the company, which allegedly diverted the money for their own personal use.

Statements from Raj Kundra and court’s responseRaj Kundra told EOW that his company, which sold household and electrical items, faced big losses after demonetisation and could not repay the loans. He has been questioned twice, and Shilpa was asked questions at her home for over four hours on October 4. The couple asked the court to cancel the lookout notice so they could travel abroad for work and holiday. But the court said they cannot travel because they are accused in a cheating case.

The judges said they have not been arrested because they are cooperating, but any further relief will depend on paying back the disputed money.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.