KPH Dream Cricket co-director Mohit Burman says not selling his 11.5% shareholding

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, August 21

Mohit Burman, one of the directors of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, has said that he is not selling his 11.5% shareholding in the company at this juncture.

Burman made the statement before a Chandigarh court.

Burman said Tomales Bay Capital LP has backed out of the deal and he is also not selling the stake at this juncture.

Anand Chhibbar, senior advocate, appearing for Burman, argued before the court that in view of the statement of the respondent the petition filed by Preity Zinta, another director of the company, has become infructuous.

Preity Zinta had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the court to issue injunction orders to restrain Burman from selling, disposing of, creating any third-party rights upon his 11.5% shareholding in the company.

However, the counsel appearing for Preity Zinta argued that the statement made by the respondent is not clear regarding the intention of the respondent for the sale of his stake to other third parties.

They said that as per the statement, only one company has backed out of the deal and the statement is unclear about the other companies.

They also questioned the use of the word “at this juncture” in the statement.

They argued the petitioner has sought restraint order for creating any third-party rights upon his 11.5% shareholding in the company.

The counsel also sought time to get instruction from the petitioner Preity Zinta, who is out of the country, regarding the statement made by the respondent.

After hearing the arguments, the court adjourned the hearing for September 2.

Zinta holds 23% shareholding while Burman holds approximately 48% shareholding in KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, a private limited company  incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company holds a franchise of the Indian Premier League (IPL). Preity Zinta claimed in the petition that she approached the court after Burman expressed his intention  to sell part  of  his share  to  Tomales Bay Capital LP and was  denying  her pre-emption  right as  per the  Articles of the  company.

She claimed that she is ready and willing to complete the  transaction to purchase 11.5 percent stake  on mutually  agreed  terms and conditions  which  were  reasonable and as opposed  to the  impractical  and grossly  unreasonable  terms and conditions  as  suggested in Burman’s  email.

She said that Articles of Association of the company contain an Arbitration Agreement which provides for arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.