Why Did PBKS Owner Preity Zinta Sue Co-owners Ness Wadia and Mohit Burman?

When IPL started back in 2008, the idea was to make cricket go fully mainstream and couple it with the other source of entertainment for Indians—cinema. Cinema and cricket are two of the most watched and discussed events in this country, and with the invention of the IPL, the word entertainment took on a whole new meaning.

For a long time, Bollywood has been closely associated with cricket, and the IPL has facilitated this connection. The active involvement of Shah Rukh Khan, Shilpa Shetty, Preity Zinta, and Juhi Chawla in team ownership was one of the major highlights of the tournament.

While Shah Rukh Khan managed to fulfill his dream of winning the title not just once but thrice, his Veer-Zaara actress Preity Zinta couldn't witness what glory feels like. She came close once in 2014, but since then, it has been a long wait for her and her team, Punjab Kings.

This time around, PBKS has got the chance again, thanks to Shreyas Iyer's fantabulous captaincy efforts. Even though RCB looks like heavy favorites, it's PBKS who will enjoy most of the fan love on Tuesday night in Ahmedabad.

Just when things look like they are falling into place for Preity Zinta and her team, a civil court in Chandigarh dismissed a suit filed by Preity, who is one of the directors of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, against co-directors Ness Wadia and Mohit Burman.

In the suit, Preity Zinta requested that the extraordinary general meeting of the company, which took place on April 21, be declared 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.

Zinta also urged restraining Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia from giving effect to any resolution that may have been passed at the meeting and stopping Muneesh Khanna from acting or holding himself out as a director of the company. Senior advocate Anand Chhibbar, assisted by advocate Amitabh Tewari, appearing for Ness Wadia, and NK Nanda, appearing for the company, opposed the suit.

After hearing the arguments, the court declared that it lacked jurisdiction due to the express statutory bar contained in Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The grievances of the plaintiff pertained substantially to oppression and mismanagement and, therefore, lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT. The court rejected the complaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for lack of jurisdiction. However, Zinta was given the liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before NCLT, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013.