From the Zilingo–Algo Legal Controversy to the Nitin Naresh Case: Is There a Recurring Pattern in the Use of Defamation Litigation and Criminal Complaints?

The controversy surrounding Sandeep Kapoor’s Algo Legal and Sequoia Capital in 2022 offers an important point of comparison with the legal disputes now involving Ankiti Bose, Krishan Rattan and Inventiva publisher Nitin Naresh. The two episodes are not identical, and the available evidence does not establish that they were orchestrated in the same manner.

Yet the sequence of events raises questions worth examining: substantial financial transactions become the subject of scrutiny; allegations and counter-allegations emerge; professional or business relationships break down; defamation proceedings follow; and the dispute increasingly moves from commercial and reputational questions into courtrooms and criminal-law territory.

The question is not whether a person has the right to defend their reputation. Everyone does. Nor is it whether a journalist can publish anything without being answerable to the law. No journalist has such immunity. The more important question is whether civil and criminal proceedings are being used proportionately, whether the underlying allegations are being examined on their evidence, and whether legal action is becoming an instrument through which public scrutiny can be discouraged.

The Sandeep Kapoor–Algo Legal controversy: The financial questions that preceded the legal battle

Sandeep Kapoor was not an unknown external lawyer who suddenly appeared in the Zilingo controversy. Before establishing Algo Legal in 2019, he had served as Sequoia Capital’s general counsel for approximately nine years. Algo Legal subsequently worked with companies in Sequoia’s investment portfolio. That professional history became particularly relevant when Sequoia announced in June 2022 that it had ended its association with Algo Legal and certain related entities.

The decision followed an investigation at a portfolio company that, according to Sequoia’s communication to selected portfolio companies, had brought to light what it described as “concerning incidents” involving Algo Legal and related parties. Sequoia also advised companies to disclose any dealings with Algo Legal and connected entities to its designated legal advisers. The entities identified in contemporary reporting included Quant Legal Tech, Themis Associates and OneDelta Technology Solutions.

The timing was significant. The decision came amid the unfolding crisis at Zilingo, the Singapore-based fashion technology startup co-founded by Ankiti Bose. Zilingo’s board had suspended Bose on 31 March 2022 pending an investigation into alleged financial irregularities. She was subsequently terminated in May 2022. The company’s financial and governance questions were becoming increasingly serious, and investors were examining transactions and service-provider relationships.

One of the most consequential aspects of the controversy was the Zilingo money reportedly paid to Algo Legal and connected entities. An investigation published by Inc42 reported that Zilingo had made payments of approximately $7 million to Algo Legal, while payments to related entities brought the reported total associated with the wider network to more than $9 million.

The report identified payments to entities including Quant Legaltech, Samvid Legal and OneDelta Technology Solutions. It also reported that Bose had approved payments to service providers and that questions had been raised about the nature and documentation of certain transactions.

These were substantial amounts. They were not merely routine legal invoices of negligible value. The reported figures raised questions about the nature of the services supplied, the commercial justification for the payments, the relationships between the recipient entities and the approval process within Zilingo.

But the distinction between a reported financial irregularity and a proved financial offence is essential. Inc42’s reporting was based on sources familiar with the company and former employees. It was not a criminal conviction or a judicial finding that Bose had committed fraud. Bose disputed wrongdoing and told the Indian Express that payments made by Zilingo had proper documentation and that the relevant finance, technology or operations teams were aware of them. She also maintained that her termination was connected to her lack of cooperation with the investigation rather than proof of financial impropriety.

The controversy therefore involved competing explanations. On one side were questions raised by the company’s investigation and reported payments. On the other was Bose’s denial and her challenge to the manner in which the investigation and termination had been handled.

The Algo Legal connection made the matter more complicated. If Zilingo had paid millions of dollars to a law firm and related entities, questions about the services, approvals, invoices, related-party connections and actual deliverables were legitimate matters for corporate scrutiny. They could not be answered merely by describing critical reporting as defamatory.

Sequoia cuts ties, allegations of pressure emerge

The controversy surrounding Algo Legal was not limited to the amount of money reportedly paid by Zilingo. Bar & Bench published a detailed report on 6 June 2022 examining why Sequoia had severed its relationship with the law firm. Its headline referred to allegations of threats of ED raids and arm-twisting involving companies in Sequoia’s portfolio.

The report described allegations that companies had been pressured to engage Algo Legal for legal work and that references to possible investigations by enforcement agencies had allegedly been used in the process. The allegations were serious because they concerned the potential use of the perceived authority and institutional relationships of a law firm to influence commercial decisions.

The Economic Times separately reported that Sequoia had stopped working with Algo Legal after an investigation at one of its portfolio companies. It quoted Kapoor as saying that he was not aware of the alleged probe and that Sequoia had not formally or informally informed him of one. Kapoor also challenged the fairness of the reporting and maintained that the firm had worked to professional standards.

It is important not to convert these allegations into established findings. Sequoia’s description of “concerning incidents” was its stated position. The allegations reported by Bar & Bench were not, merely by being published, judicially proved. Kapoor and Algo Legal denied wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, the commercial consequences were substantial. Sequoia ended its association with Algo Legal and related entities, while the controversy became a public dispute involving the law firm, its founder, the venture capital firm and media organisations.

The central issue was no longer simply whether a particular invoice was justified. It had become a dispute about professional conduct, the relationship between a law firm and a major investor, the alleged use of regulatory threats, and the credibility of the reporting that brought those questions into public view.

The defamation suit: A legal counterattack against Sequoia and the media

Following the reports and Sequoia’s decision, Sandeep Kapoor and Algo Legal filed a ₹1 crore defamation suit before a Bengaluru court against Sequoia Capital and several media organisations. The plaintiffs argued that false publications had damaged their reputation and business. The litigation included media outlets and journalists, as well as Sequoia and other parties.

The filing of a defamation suit was itself a significant escalation. Instead of the controversy remaining confined to the original questions about payments, legal services and the severance of professional relationships, the dispute moved into litigation over the consequences of reporting those questions.

The legal proceedings also produced an important development at the interim stage. Bar & Bench and Inc42 reported that the Bengaluru court issued notices to the defendants but did not grant the requested interim gag order restraining further publication. That distinction matters. A court issuing notice is not the same as a court accepting the plaintiff’s allegations. Equally, refusal to grant an interim injunction is not a final judgment that every publication was accurate.

The defamation suit was eventually withdrawn in November 2022. The Economic Times, reporting through PTI, stated explicitly that the withdrawal was without an out-of-court settlement. Sequoia’s spokesperson said the suit had been withdrawn shortly before Sequoia was due to file its reply and described the withdrawal as a vindication of the company’s position. Algo Legal also confirmed that it had withdrawn the suit.

That is an important correction to the suggestion that the dispute was settled privately. The available reporting says the opposite: the suit was withdrawn without an out-of-court settlement. Nor does withdrawal alone establish that the suit was false. What it does establish is that the defamation action did not proceed to a final judicial determination of the merits.

The broader question remains: when allegations about financial transactions and professional conduct are followed by defamation proceedings against the parties reporting or responding to them, how should the public distinguish a legitimate attempt to protect reputation from an attempt to deter scrutiny?

Ankiti Bose and the legal proceedings against Nitin Naresh

Four years later, another dispute involving Ankiti Bose has raised questions about the relationship between investigative reporting, defamation litigation and criminal complaints.

Bose, the former Zilingo CEO, and Krishan Rattan have been associated with Terra Invest. Nitin Naresh, publisher of Inventiva, has published a series of articles concerning their business activities and related controversies. Bose and Rattan have challenged publications through separate defamation proceedings.

Bose instituted CS(OS) 756/2026 before the Delhi High Court. In its order dated 24 August 2026, the Court recorded her case that articles published by Naresh and other defendants contained false and defamatory allegations. The order also recorded that Bose had earlier approached the Dwarka District Court and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 8 June 2026.

The Delhi High Court granted further interim directions. It restrained the defendants from disseminating specified articles through LinkedIn and other social-media accounts and from publishing further articles that would have the effect of restraining Bose from exercising her legal rights.

This is an important part of the record and cannot be ignored. Bose did obtain interim judicial relief. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that she failed to obtain any relief or that a court had already rejected her defamation case.

But an interim injunction is not a final determination of the truth or falsity of every allegation in the articles. The order was passed at an interlocutory stage, on the material then before the Court. The suit remained pending, with the defendants entitled to respond. The distinction between interim protection and final adjudication is fundamental.

A separate suit was filed by Krishan Rattan, CS(OS) 815/2026. On 14 September 2026, the Delhi High Court passed an interim direction restraining Naresh and other defendants from publishing further articles containing defamatory imputations against Rattan. However, paragraph 22 of that order is especially relevant to the present discussion. The Court expressly clarified that the interim direction was based on a prima facie assessment and the balance of convenience, and that it should not be construed as preventing the defendants from continuing their fact-finding exercise concerning allegations against Rattan.

That qualification matters. The Court did not declare that investigative work into Rattan’s affairs must stop altogether. It distinguished between publishing defamatory imputations and continuing a fact-finding exercise.

The proceedings therefore establish that Bose and Rattan pursued civil remedies and obtained interim protection. They do not establish that every underlying investigative allegation was false, nor do they establish that Naresh committed defamation as a final judicial finding.

From civil litigation to a criminal FIR: The Jaipur case

The next development was more serious. FIR No. 267/2026 was registered on 14 September 2026 at Shastri Nagar Police Station, Jaipur City (North), following a complaint by Aniruddh Saran Purohit. The complainant described himself as the India representative of Terra Vision Investments LLC, associated with Terra Invest.

The complaint alleged that emails received on 26 August and 3 September 2026 demanded money and linked payment to the prospect of further adverse publications. It further alleged that ₹11,700 was deposited in cash on 3 September through an HDFC Bank cash-deposit machine in Jaipur into an account held by Nine Network Private Limited, the company identified as operating Inventiva.

According to the complaint, the payment was made because of the alleged pressure and another demand followed. The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to extortion, criminal intimidation and conspiracy.

The complainant stated that he had first approached the local police and then the Deputy Commissioner of Police. After the matter was not registered as an FIR, he approached the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The FIR was registered following the court’s direction.

The identity of the complainant is significant. The available FIR reporting identifies Purohit, not Bose personally, as the complainant. His stated connection to Terra Invest provides the link to the wider dispute involving Bose and Rattan. It would therefore be inaccurate to write that Bose personally filed the Jaipur FIR unless further documentary evidence establishes that fact.

Naresh disputes the extortion allegations. His position is that he did not send the alleged emails or demand money and that the communications may have been sent by someone impersonating him. He has also questioned the circumstances of the ₹11,700 deposit and alleged that the transaction was engineered to implicate him.

These competing accounts must be investigated. The bank transaction, if verified, can establish that money was deposited into a particular account. It does not independently establish who wrote the emails, who controlled the email account, who physically made the deposit or whether the payment was induced by a threat.

The relevant evidence includes the original emails and their technical headers, message identifiers, account-access records, device evidence, IP logs where lawfully obtainable, bank records, cash-deposit machine logs, CCTV footage and the subsequent movement of the deposited amount. Without this material, neither the complainant’s version nor the defence’s version should be treated as conclusively established.

The earlier Zilingo FIR: A separate complaint, not proof of a recurring false case

The comparison also brings attention to the criminal complaint Bose made against her former Zilingo colleagues in April 2024. Media reports stated that an FIR was registered against former co-founder Dhruv Kapoor and former COO Aadi Vaidya following her complaint. The allegations included sexual harassment, intimidation and other misconduct.

The accused persons’ position and the circumstances of that complaint must be considered independently. The existence of that FIR does not establish that the complaint was false. Nor does the subsequent Jaipur FIR establish that the earlier Zilingo complaint was fabricated. They concern different complainants, accused persons, events, dates and evidence.

Nevertheless, the sequence is relevant to understanding the public controversies surrounding Bose. In the Zilingo dispute, she was the subject of an internal investigation and termination following allegations of financial irregularities, which she denied. She subsequently made a criminal complaint against former colleagues. In the current dispute, she has pursued civil defamation remedies against a publisher whose articles concerned her and her business associations. A separate criminal FIR has now been registered by a person who says he represents an organisation associated with her.

This is a chronology that deserves scrutiny. But chronology is not proof of conspiracy, fabrication or malicious intent.

Is there a pattern of legal pressure? The similarities and the limits of the comparison

The Sandeep Kapoor–Algo Legal episode and the present Bose–Naresh dispute share certain broad features. In both, questions about business conduct and financial dealings became the subject of public reporting. In both, the reporting was followed by serious disputes over reputation. In both, defamation proceedings were brought against parties associated with the reporting. And in both, the dispute extended beyond a simple disagreement over whether an article was fair or accurate.

There is, however, a crucial difference. In the Kapoor episode, the defamation suit was brought by the law firm and its founder against Sequoia and media organisations, and it was later withdrawn without an out-of-court settlement. In the Bose matter, the defamation proceedings remain ongoing and interim injunctions were granted. The Jaipur FIR is a separate criminal proceeding initiated on the complaint of Purohit. The two episodes cannot be treated as legally identical.

The strongest similarity is therefore not that the same conduct has been proved. It is that reputational disputes arising from contested business reporting have escalated into multiple legal proceedings, placing the publisher and the subjects of reporting in an increasingly adversarial position.

That raises a legitimate public-interest question: can a publisher continue to investigate matters of public interest when the subjects of the investigation have obtained interim injunctions and a criminal case has also been registered? The answer must be that the law protects both reputation and legitimate investigation. A journalist cannot publish knowingly false allegations or ignore court orders. Equally, a defamation suit or an FIR should not become a substitute for answering substantiated questions about financial transactions and corporate conduct.

The October 28, 2026, rejection of Naresh’s anticipatory-bail application must also be reported. The Jaipur Sessions Court considered the alleged emails, the ₹11,700 transaction, the case diary and the need for further investigation. It declined to grant pre-arrest protection. That is a serious procedural setback for Naresh, but it is not a conviction and does not finally establish who sent the emails or whether the alleged extortion occurred.

The questions that should not disappear

The public interest in the Zilingo–Algo Legal controversy did not end merely because Kapoor and Algo Legal withdrew their defamation suit. The reported payments, the identities of recipient entities, the nature of services provided, the approval process and the findings of the relevant internal investigations remain matters that can be examined through reliable documents and evidence.

Likewise, the public interest in the Terra Invest and Inventiva dispute cannot be reduced to the question of whether Naresh should face criminal prosecution. The underlying business questions that prompted the reporting must be capable of independent examination, subject to the law and the courts’ orders.

The Jaipur investigation should establish who created and sent the disputed emails, whether the sender can be technically linked to Naresh, who deposited the money, what happened to the money after it entered the beneficiary account, and whether the payment was connected to any demand or threat. The Delhi civil proceedings should determine the merits of the defamation claims through evidence and due process. The BPTP recording dispute, which is separately before the Delhi High Court for forensic examination, must not be conflated with the Jaipur email evidence.

There is also a responsibility on the publisher. Investigative journalism must be supported by documents, verifiable sources and fair representation of the responses of those criticised. A journalist’s claim to public-interest reporting cannot exempt the publication from legal scrutiny. But neither can a subject of reporting use the existence of litigation to make every further question appear illegitimate.

The comparison with Sandeep Kapoor’s Algo Legal dispute is therefore worth making, provided it is made carefully. It reveals a recurring question about how business controversies, public allegations, defamation suits and criminal complaints interact. It does not, on the present evidence, prove that Ankiti Bose fabricated the Jaipur FIR, that her Zilingo complaint was false, or that the defamation cases were judicially found to be baseless.

The central question is whether the legal system can protect individuals against genuinely defamatory reporting while also protecting the ability of journalists to investigate matters of legitimate public concern. If the evidence supports the allegations against a publisher, the law must take its course. If the evidence does not support them, the criminal process must not become punishment in itself.

The public should not be asked to choose between reputation and accountability. Both deserve protection. What must not be allowed to disappear is the evidence.