Rishabh Telang, co-founder of Bengaluru-based fitness chain Cult Fitness Pvt Ltd, has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash an FIR lodged by his brother-in-law and co-founder Deepak Poduval, who has accused him of forgery and criminal conspiracy related to a 2016 asset transfer.
- FIR accuses Rishabh Telang of forgery and cheating in 2016 asset transfer
- Telang moves Karnataka High Court to quash FIR; no arrest imminent
- Cult.fit denies involvement; legal dispute unfolds pre-IPO
What happened
Deepak Poduval, co-founder of Cult Fitness Pvt Ltd, filed an FIR at Bellandur Police Station in Bengaluru accusing his co-founder and brother-in-law, Rishabh Telang, of forging his signature on several corporate documents related to the 2016 transfer of assets and intellectual property rights. The documents allegedly forged include board resolutions, shareholder consents, and statutory filings necessary for the winding up of Cult Fitness and transfer to Cultfit Healthcare Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of the IPO-bound Cult.fit group.
Following the FIR, Telang approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the complaint. The court has not granted a stay on the investigation but has sought responses from the complainant and the State government, scheduling the next hearing for September 2. The court acknowledged that Telang received a police notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and that no immediate arrest would occur.
Why it matters
The allegations highlight internal disputes and governance challenges within startups approaching public listings. Poduval claims he was systematically excluded from management decisions despite equal shareholding and director status, and that his shareholding was effectively nullified without compensation. If proven, such claims could undermine investor confidence in Cult.fit’s corporate governance just ahead of its IPO.
Telang and Cult.fit have denied wrongdoing, asserting that all transactions were duly authorized and that Poduval was involved throughout the process. Cult.fit also clarified it has no ownership or control over Cult Fitness Pvt Ltd, and noted that the asset acquisition was completed with due consideration. The controversy illustrates the complexity of founder relationships and legal entanglements that can arise in rapidly growing Indian startups.
What to watch next
The Karnataka High Court’s response to the petition will be pivotal. A quashing of the FIR could resolve the dispute swiftly, while an ongoing investigation could prolong legal uncertainties for Cult.fit as it seeks to finalize its IPO. The court’s September 2 hearing will be closely watched for signals on how judicial authorities view the claims and procedural merits of the case.
Additionally, any further developments from the parties involved, including possible settlement talks or additional legal motions, will be important. The case may also attract scrutiny regarding corporate governance standards in Indian startups preparing for public markets, potentially leading to more stringent regulatory expectations or investor caution around founder-led legal conflicts.