Read the counter-case
On this page

IPO-Bound Cult.fit Co-Founder Named in FIR Over Alleged Forgery and Stake Dispute

Bengaluru police registered an FIR against Cult Fitness Pvt Ltd and co-founder Rishabh Telang over alleged forgery and removal of former co-founder Deepak Poduval’s 50% stake. Cult.fit says it is a separate entity and acquired relevant assets and IP in 2016.

Newer report , , The Hindu BusinessLine : Cult.fit targets presence in 100 cities over the next four to five years

More on Cult.fit

  1. Cult.fit is working toward an IPO, says executive chairman Mukesh Bansal, , The Ken
  2. Cult.fit files for IPO: FY26 revenue up 41.6% to ₹1,720.6 Cr as losses halve, Cultsport retail scales to 50 stores, , Inc42

07:30 IST · 10 moves · what each means · free

The numbers

Figures from NDTV Profit,

  • 2019 alleged company strike-off

Other figures

  • 2020 MCA closure email
  • 2026 record review

Why it matters to operators and investors

Any partnership, acquisition, or financing involving Cult.fit should include heightened diligence on chain of title, historical ownership claims, indemnities, and dispute-related closing conditions.

What to watch next

  • Whether the FIR advances to charges, arrests, summonses, seizure of corporate records or a closure report.
  • Any civil suit seeking restoration of the alleged 50% stake, injunctions over assets or IP, or restrictions on fundraising or share transfers.
  • Court orders relating to the disputed entity, historical share records, asset transfer documents or IP ownership.
  • Cult.fit board, investor or auditor actions, including appointment of independent counsel, special committee formation or changes in executive responsibilities.
  • IPO filing, draft prospectus disclosures, delayed filing plans, revised use-of-proceeds language or expanded contingent-liability disclosures.
Show 2 more
  • Statements from major investors, lenders, strategic partners or regulators indicating concern over governance or ownership-chain risk.
  • Evidence that the disputed business, assets, trademarks, customer contracts or employees overlap materially with the current Cult.fit operating entity.

Likely next moves

Our read of what comes next — analysis, not reported by the source.

  • Strengthen disclosure controls around legacy acquisitions, historical capitalization, related-party dealings and the 2016 asset/IP transfer.
  • Commission an independent legal and forensic review, with a board-led special committee if allegations create management conflicts.
  • Prepare an IPO diligence package documenting entity separateness, ownership chain, consideration paid, asset assignments and prior shareholder approvals.
  • Engage early with bankers, auditors and key existing investors on litigation-contingency language, valuation sensitivity and timing alternatives.
  • Evaluate settlement parameters while avoiding admissions that could compromise the company’s defense.
Show 1 more
  • Implement a clear external communications plan separating allegations, FIR registration, ongoing investigation and the company’s stated position.

The counter-case

The case against this reading — not reported by the source.

The FIR could create a material overhang for an IPO-bound company: even if the allegations relate to a predecessor business and historical transactions, investors may discount the stock for governance risk, potential injunctions, contingent liabilities, management distraction, and uncertainty over ownership of assets or IP. The headline may also revive questions about founder disclosures and transaction documentation during early-stage restructurings.

The source

Source Read the source at NDTV Profit Published

First seen

By