Talk about a birthday surprise! Raj Kundra, famous as Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty’s husband, had his special day overshadowed by legal woes. The Economic Offenses Wing, or EOW, sent him a summons. They want to question him about a major fraud case. This case involves a staggering 60.48 crore rupees.
Mr. Kundra is now scheduled to appear for questioning on September 15. He was originally supposed to show up on September 10. However, he asked for more time.
No Leaving the Country
The EOW isn’t taking any chances. They have issued a Look Out Circular against Raj Kundra. This special order means he cannot leave the country. A senior EOW officer confirmed this step. They also mentioned that the auditor from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has been called for questioning.
Past Interrogations
This isn’t the first time Mr. Kundra and Ms. Shetty have faced scrutiny. Both were called in three times during the initial investigation. They told authorities they live in London. Because of this, they sent their lawyer to represent them. However, the EOW wasn’t satisfied with the information provided. They stated the lawyer didn’t give full details. After that, an official First Information Report (FIR) was filed.
The Allegations
The heart of the matter lies with an FIR filed at Mumbai’s Juhu Police Station. The Director of Lotus Capital Financial Services made a serious claim. He says he invested 60.48 crore rupees into Best Deal TV Private Limited. This company belongs to Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra. The investments happened between 2015 and 2023. He alleges that instead of using the money for the company, Shilpa and Raj spent it themselves.
The Defense
Deepak Kothari, the complainant, has a lawyer named Jain Shroff. Shroff states his client presented evidence of his investments. He added that the company misled his client. On the flip side, Shilpa Shetty’s lawyer, Prashant Patil, strongly denied these accusations. Patil argues that Mr. Kothari was a partner in the company himself. His son was even appointed as a director. Patil concluded that if the company had made profits, both parties would have shared them.