Bombay High Court Dismisses Nawazuddin Siddiqui's Suit Demanding ₹100 Crore From His Brother & Ex-Wife

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed the civil suit filed by Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui against his brother Shamasuddin Siddiqui and his wife Anjana Pandey, demanding Rs 100 crore in damages for alleged defamation and loss of reputation.

Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. However, a detailed copy of the order is yet to be made available.

According to the suit, Siddiqui appointed his younger brother as his manager in 2008 on account of his unemployment. Shamsuddin also had the work of auditing, filing income tax returns, payment of GST, etc. It was stated that Siddiqui gave his credit cards, debit cards, ATM cards, signed cheque book, bank passwords, email address, etc. to Shamsuddin for the work and he concentrated on his acting.

However, Shamsuddin allegedly started cheating and defrauding Siddiqui, the actor contended, adding further that his younger brother brought properties jointly but told Siddiqui that the properties were being bought in his name.

The properties include a flat and a semi-commercial property in Yari Road, a place in Buldhana, a farmhouse in Shahpur, a property in Dubai, and 14 vehicles including Range Rovers, BMWs, Ducati, etc., Siddiqui has said in his plaint.

Siddiqui alleged that when he questioned Shamsuddin, his younger brother instigated ex-wife to file false cases against him. The petition also claims that Anjana Pandey represented herself to be an unmarried Muslim before their marriage despite being married to someone else.

Siddiqui had claimed that Shamsuddin and Pandey misappropriated Rs. 20 Crore. Further, as his manager, Shamsuddin had access to many of Siddiqui's meetings and made audio and video recordings of the conversations, the suit claims.

Shamsuddin's service as Siddiqui's manager was discontinued by Siddiqui in 2020. After that, Siddiqui claims he received legal notices from Income Tax, GST and other government departments for unpaid dues of Rs. 37 Crores that Shamsuddin failed to pay.

Shamsuddin and Pandey started blackmailing Siddiqui with "cheap videos" and comments on social media when he asked for his properties back, the petition claims, adding that Shamsuddin got his other brothers to do this as well.

Siddiqui had alleged that Pandey used Rs. 10 Lakh per month he gave for his children's education and Rs. 2.5 Crores he gave to start a production house for her pleasure and enjoyment.

The suit stated that Siddiqui's then upcoming films had been postponed due to the false videos and posts made by Shamsuddin and Pandey. He had further claimed that the posts and articles were so defamatory that he felt very shy to attend social gatherings and go out in public.

Therefore, Siddiqui had sought a permanent injunction restraining Shamsuddin and Pandey from defaming him and publishing defamatory content on their social media. He had also demanded a written public apology as well as taking down the defamatory posts made by them on social media.

Siddiqui had also sought disclosure of the people Shamsuddin and Pandey approached to convey "false and malicious information" about him. He prayed that the two be restrained from disposing of their assets, especially in a way that might adversely affect him from recovering the damages caused by them.

Advocates Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Snigdha Khandelwal and Farid Shaikh represented Shamsuddin Siddiqui