In February 2022, Bollywood actresses Shilpa Shetty Kundra and Shamita Shetty, along with their mother Sunanda Shetty, were summoned by the Andheri court in Mumbai over an alleged loan non-repayment case. This news sparked headlines and raised questions about the details surrounding the situation.
Understanding the Loan Dispute
The summons stemmed from a complaint filed by businessman Parhad Amra, who claimed that Shilpa and Shamita’s late father, Surendra Shetty, had borrowed Rs. 21 lakh (approximately $27,000) from him in 2015. The loan agreement allegedly stipulated repayment by January 2017. However, according to Amra, neither Surendra Shetty during his lifetime nor his family members fulfilled their obligation to repay the loan amount.
Legal Proceedings and Repercussions
The court order mandated Shilpa, Shamita, and Sunanda Shetty to appear before it on February 28, 2022. It is important to note that a summons is not a verdict of guilt. It simply compels the named individuals to present themselves in court to address the allegations.
Unfortunately, there is no publicly available information regarding the final outcome of the court case. Neither the Shetty family nor Amra have released any official statements about the current status of the loan dispute.
Shilpa Shetty’s Past Legal Battles
This loan repayment case was not Shilpa Shetty’s first brush with the legal system. In 2007, she was involved in an obscenity case related to a public event where Hollywood actor Richard Gere kissed her hand. The court ultimately ruled in Shilpa’s favor in 2022, recognizing her as the victim in the situation.
Key Takeaways
- Shilpa Shetty, Shamita Shetty, and Sunanda Shetty were summoned to court in February 2022 over an alleged loan non-repayment case.
- The loan was reportedly taken by Shilpa and Shamita’s father, Surendra Shetty, in 2015.
- The status of the court case and the final verdict are unknown.
Further Research and Speculation
Due to the lack of official updates, the specifics of the loan agreement and the reasons behind the alleged non-repayment remain unclear. It’s also important to acknowledge that both sides of the story deserve to be heard.