Cult founder Rishabh Telang is facing allegations of forgery and other offences after Bengaluru’s Bellandur Police registered an FIR following a complaint by former co-founder Deepak Poduval. The complaint relates to documents allegedly used to wind up Cult Fitness Private Limited, the original company associated with the Cult brand. Telang has denied the allegations, while Cult.fit has said the entity named in the FIR was separate from its current business and that neither Cult.fit nor its subsidiaries are accused in the case.
The dispute has emerged at a sensitive time for Cult.fit, which is preparing for a public-market debut. The fitness company has filed IPO papers seeking to raise up to ₹950 crore through a fresh issue. While Cult.fit has sought to distance its current operations from the legal dispute, the allegations concern the company’s early corporate history and involve one of its original founders, making the matter relevant to investors evaluating governance, ownership records and potential legal risks ahead of the IPO.
What Happened
Bellandur Police registered the FIR on August 6 based on a complaint filed by Deepak Poduval, who co-founded Cult Fitness with Rishabh Telang in 2015.
According to Poduval’s complaint, documents submitted to the Registrar of Companies in 2019 contained forged versions of his signatures. He alleges that those documents were used to wind up Cult Fitness Private Limited without his authorization. The allegations include forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy, among other offences.
Poduval said he discovered the disputed filings this year while reviewing the company’s records available through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal.
Dispute at a Glance
| Issue | Details |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Deepak Poduval |
| Accused | Rishabh Telang and Cult Fitness Private Limited |
| Police station | Bellandur Police, Bengaluru |
| FIR date | August 6, 2026 |
| Main allegations | Forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy |
| Disputed documents | 2019 company strike-off and winding-up filings |
| Company involved in FIR | Cult Fitness Private Limited |
| Current Cult.fit entities accused | No |
| Status | Allegations yet to be adjudicated |
The legal case is still at an early stage, and the allegations have not been established by a court.
Poduval’s Allegations
Poduval has alleged that documents filed during the process of striking off Cult Fitness carried signatures that were not authorized by him.
He claims that the filings ultimately resulted in the company’s removal from the corporate registry and the loss of his 50% shareholding.
According to Poduval, he did not authorize the winding-up process and did not receive consideration for the ownership interest he says was extinguished.
The dispute therefore involves more than the authenticity of signatures. At its core is a disagreement over the ownership and subsequent closure of the original Cult Fitness entity.
Poduval’s account is contested by Telang, who says his former co-founder was involved in both the company’s transactions and its eventual winding-up.
Telang Denies Forgery Allegations
Telang has categorically rejected the allegations.
He said Poduval was involved in transactions between Cult Fitness and CultFit Healthcare Private Limited, as well as the subsequent winding-up of Cult Fitness.
Telang said he possesses correspondence that supports his account. He also referred to an email from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated March 12, 2020, which he said acknowledged the winding-up process and was shared with both him and Poduval.
Telang further said Poduval had received payment connected to the agreement with CultFit Healthcare. Poduval has disputed that claim.
Telang has described the allegations as without merit and said he intends to address them through the appropriate legal process.
Cult.fit Distances Current Business From FIR
Cult.fit has emphasized that the company named in the FIR is not the same entity as its current operating business.
The company said Cult Fitness Private Limited was a separate independent company associated with Poduval and that Cult.fit and its subsidiaries did not have ownership or management control over it.
Cult.fit also said neither Cult.fit Limited nor CultFit Healthcare Private Limited has been named as an accused in the FIR.
This distinction is important because the legal dispute concerns an older corporate entity connected to the origins of the Cult brand, rather than an allegation against the current listed-IPO entity itself.
Cult.fit’s Position
Cult.fit said its subsidiary, CultFit Healthcare Private Limited, acquired certain assets and intellectual property from Poduval and Cult Fitness in 2016 under contractual arrangements.
The company said the transaction included the “Cult – The Workout Station” brand name and that consideration for the acquisition was duly paid and acknowledged.
Cult.fit said the transaction was therefore completed and closed.
The company’s position is that the current business should be viewed separately from the corporate dispute surrounding Cult Fitness Private Limited.
How Cult Fitness Became Part of the Current Business
Poduval and Telang founded Cult Fitness in 2015, building the business around group workouts and the Cult brand.
The Cult concept subsequently became part of the broader Cult.fit fitness business.
The evolution of the original company into the current fitness platform is central to understanding why the FIR has attracted attention ahead of the IPO.
While Cult.fit says the entity at the centre of the FIR was separate from its current operations, the parties involved were connected to the early development and commercialization of the Cult brand.
This creates a corporate-history issue that potential investors may examine as part of their assessment of the company.
Cult.fit’s IPO Plans
The dispute comes as Cult.fit moves toward an initial public offering.
The company has filed IPO papers with the Securities and Exchange Board of India seeking to raise up to ₹950 crore through a fresh issue.
The proposed listing would give public-market investors exposure to one of India’s largest technology-enabled fitness platforms.
For an IPO-bound company, legal disputes involving founders or former founders can attract additional scrutiny, even when the listed entity is not itself named as an accused.
Investors typically examine litigation disclosures, related-party transactions, historical ownership changes and corporate records before deciding whether potential risks have been adequately addressed.
Why the Timing Matters
The timing of the FIR makes the dispute particularly notable.
Cult.fit is moving toward a public listing at a time when investors are increasingly examining the governance standards of technology and consumer startups entering India’s stock markets.
The allegations concern events dating back several years, but their emergence now could prompt questions about how historical corporate matters were handled.
At the same time, the existence of an FIR does not establish wrongdoing.
The allegations will have to go through the legal process, and Telang has explicitly denied the charges.
Potential IPO Implications
The immediate question for investors is whether the dispute has any material connection to the current Cult.fit business or its proposed IPO.
Cult.fit’s statement that neither it nor its subsidiaries are accused in the FIR could reduce the direct corporate exposure.
However, investors may still want clarity on the history of the Cult brand, asset transfers and relationships between the original founders and the current corporate structure.
Areas Investors May Examine
- Legal proceedings and their status
- Historical ownership of Cult Fitness
- Asset and intellectual-property transfers
- Founder relationships
- Corporate filings
- Potential liabilities
- Related-party transactions
- IPO disclosures
- Governance controls
The extent to which these issues are addressed in public filings could influence investor perception.
Corporate Governance Becomes a Key Issue
The dispute also highlights the importance of corporate governance during the transition from startup to public company.
Private companies can undergo multiple restructurings, acquisitions, ownership transfers and changes in legal entities as they grow.
Once a company prepares to list publicly, however, investors expect greater transparency around historical transactions and potential legal liabilities.
For Cult.fit, establishing a clear distinction between the old Cult Fitness entity and the current operating structure will therefore be important.
Legal Process Remains Ongoing
The allegations against Telang remain unproven.
An FIR represents the registration of a police case following a complaint; it does not itself determine guilt.
Telang has denied forging Poduval’s signatures and said he will respond through the legal process.
Cult.fit has also said it is contesting the charges and that it has not received communication from authorities regarding the matter, according to its response to Moneycontrol.
The outcome of any investigation or subsequent court proceedings will determine whether the allegations are substantiated.
A Dispute Over the 2019 Winding-Up
The central corporate event in the dispute occurred in 2019, when Cult Fitness was struck off.
Poduval alleges that the strike-off documents contained forged signatures and were filed without his authorization.
Telang, however, says Poduval participated in the winding-up process and points to subsequent MCA correspondence as supporting evidence.
The conflicting accounts mean that documentation surrounding the transaction, corporate filings and communications between the founders could become important in determining what occurred.
Dispute Also Has a Family Dimension
Telang has questioned the timing of the FIR by referring to a separate property-settlement case filed against Poduval by Telang’s sister, who is Poduval’s wife, on July 1, 2026.
He suggested that the family dispute may have contributed to the current legal action.
This is Telang’s characterization of the circumstances surrounding the complaint and has not been established as the reason for the FIR.
The separate dispute adds another layer to an already complicated relationship between the former business partners.
Broader Startup Governance Lessons
The case illustrates the risks that can emerge from unresolved disagreements between startup founders.
Founders may separate from businesses through acquisitions, asset sales, share transfers or corporate restructuring. If documentation around those transactions later becomes disputed, the consequences can extend beyond the individuals involved.
For startups approaching an IPO, maintaining clear records becomes particularly important.
Public investors are not only assessing current financial performance but also the company’s historical ownership, governance and legal exposure.
What Investors Should Watch
The next developments in the case could influence the level of attention it receives ahead of the IPO.
Key developments include:
- Progress of the police investigation
- Any response or filings by Telang
- Poduval’s further legal action
- Court proceedings, if initiated
- Clarifications in Cult.fit’s IPO disclosures
- Details surrounding the 2016 asset transaction
- Documentation related to the 2019 strike-off
- Any potential impact on the IPO timeline
The distinction between the current Cult.fit business and the older Cult Fitness entity will remain particularly important.
Industry Impact
The dispute comes at a time when India’s startup ecosystem is seeing more companies move toward public markets.
As private companies prepare for IPOs, historical founder disputes, ownership disagreements and legal claims can become more visible because public investors require greater transparency.
For other startups approaching listings, the episode reinforces the importance of maintaining comprehensive corporate records and resolving ownership issues before entering the public markets.
For investors, it is another reminder that IPO analysis involves more than revenue growth and valuation. Corporate structure, governance and unresolved legal matters can also affect the risk profile of a company.
Looking Ahead
The legal dispute involving Rishabh Telang and former co-founder Deepak Poduval adds a new layer of scrutiny around Cult.fit as the fitness company prepares for its proposed ₹950 crore IPO. Poduval alleges that signatures were forged on 2019 documents used to wind up the original Cult Fitness entity, while Telang denies the allegations and says Poduval was involved in the transactions and subsequent winding-up. Cult.fit, meanwhile, has stressed that the entity named in the FIR was separate from its current business and that neither Cult.fit nor its subsidiaries has been named as an accused.
The immediate priority for Cult.fit will be maintaining clarity around the distinction between its present corporate structure and the historical entity at the centre of the complaint. Investors will likely examine the company’s IPO disclosures, historical asset transfers, founder relationships and any developments in the legal proceedings. Because the allegations have not been adjudicated, the case should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing; however, its resolution and the transparency with which Cult.fit addresses any relevant historical issues could become important factors as the company moves closer to the public markets.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
