Film actress and Punjab Kings team co-Malakin Preity Zinta has got temporary relief from the Chandigarh court. He complained against Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia, two fellow directors of his own company KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited.
,
Preity says that the meeting held on April 21 was against the company’s rules, so it should be canceled.
However, on 31 May, his petition was dismissed by the trial court. After this, Preeti appealed to the upper court and demanded that the company should not have a new meeting or decision as long as the appeal is going on.
The court has currently said that all the decisions taken in the company’s meeting will depend on Preity’s appeal and the final decision of the case. That is, until the case is fully decided, no decision will be considered confirmed.
Now the next hearing will be held on 7 August. Till then the court has asked all the parties to file their documents and answers.
Ness Wadia’s lawyer says that when the trial court has already dismissed the case, there may be no stay again.
What did the court say ..
The court made it clear that no stay can be imposed directly because the answers and necessary documents of all the parties have not come to the court. But the court also said that the meeting of July 7 and the decisions taken after that will not be considered valid yet and the final decision of the court will be affected.
Lower court petition was rejected
In fact, Preity Zinta had filed a petition in the lower court a few days ago, demanding the declaration of Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EGM) of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited on 21 April 2025 as invalid. He alleged that the meeting was called in violation of the Companies Act and the rules. He also appealed for immediate stay.
However, his petition was dismissed by the lower court. After this, Zinta challenged the order and appealed to the ADJ Court.
Allegations against Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia
In his petition, Zinta accused co-director Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia of calling and conducted the rules with the rules. He told the court that if a decision is not taken on the appeal, its purpose would fail.