Cult.fit’s IPO push has hit an early complication, with a legal dispute from its founding years now surfacing at a critical moment. As the fitness platform prepares to tap public markets, allegations involving one of its original entities and co-founders have drawn police attention, raising questions that extend beyond just one transaction.

The timing is hard to ignore. For a company gearing up for listing, scrutiny tends to widen beyond financials to include how the business was built in the first place. And in this case, the focus has turned to decisions made nearly a decade ago.

The Cult.fit Fallout

The dispute centres on Rishabh Telang and Deepak Poduval, who co-founded Cult Fitness Private Limited in 2015, the original company behind the Cult brand. What was once a business partnership has now escalated into a legal confrontation, with Poduval accusing Telang of forging his signatures on official filings.

According to the complaint, these documents were used to wind up the company without Poduval’s knowledge, effectively eliminating his 50 percent stake without compensation. An FIR registered by the Bellandur Police on August 6 names Telang and Cult Fitness Private Limited, citing allegations of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy.

At the heart of the case is a breakdown over ownership and consent, with the dispute now threatening to pull an early chapter of the Cult story back into the spotlight.

What The FIR Alleges

At the core of the FIR are allegations that official filings made with the Registrar of Companies in 2019 carried forged versions of Deepak Poduval’s signature. According to the complaint, these documents were used to initiate and complete the strike-off process of Cult Fitness Private Limited.

Poduval claims he did not authorise these filings and only discovered them recently while reviewing company records on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal. The filings in question relate to the company’s closure, a process that requires consent from shareholders and directors, making the authenticity of signatures central to the case.

In a note, Poduval has alleged that the use of these signatures enabled the company to be struck off later that year, effectively extinguishing his 50 percent shareholding without any financial consideration. The FIR accordingly invokes charges of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy, framing the issue not just as a dispute over paperwork, but over how control of the company was formally transferred and concluded.

The matter now hinges on whether the signatures on these statutory filings were indeed unauthorised, a determination that will likely depend on document verification and the trail of communication around the winding-up process.

Cult.fit’s Position

Cult.fit has sought to distance itself from the dispute, maintaining that the entity named in the FIR, Cult Fitness Private Limited, is separate from its current operating structure. The company said it has not received any official communication from authorities and became aware of the matter through media queries.

In its clarification, Cult.fit emphasised that neither Cult.fit Limited nor its subsidiaries, including CultFit Healthcare Private Limited, have been named as accused in the FIR. It described the company at the centre of the allegations as an independent entity that was not under its ownership or management control.

The company also pointed to a transaction dating back to 2016, stating that its subsidiary had acquired certain assets and intellectual property rights, including the ‘Cult – The Workout Station’ brand, from Poduval and Cult Fitness under contractual arrangements. According to Cult.fit, this transaction was completed for consideration that was duly paid and acknowledged, and the acquisition stood fully concluded.

By drawing a clear line between the disputed entity and its current business, Cult.fit has attempted to position the issue as a legacy matter that does not directly impact its present operations.

Telang’s Defence

Rishabh Telang has strongly denied the allegations, maintaining that Deepak Poduval was fully aware of both the transactions involving CultFit Healthcare Private Limited and the subsequent winding-up of Cult Fitness Private Limited.

In his response, Telang said he possesses multiple pieces of correspondence to support his claim that Poduval was involved throughout the process. He also pointed to an email from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated March 12, 2020, which acknowledged the company’s closure and, according to him, was shared with both parties.

Telang further stated that Poduval had received payment as part of the agreement tied to the transfer of assets and intellectual property. Poduval has denied receiving any such consideration.

He has also questioned the timing of the FIR, linking it to an ongoing property-settlement dispute between Poduval and his wife, who is Telang’s sister. A case related to this was filed on July 1, 2026, and Telang has suggested that the current allegations may have been triggered by that dispute.

Calling the charges “entirely without merit”, Telang said he intends to contest them through the appropriate legal channels and is evaluating options to protect his reputation, while expressing confidence that the facts will emerge through due process.

The IPO Moment

The timing of the dispute is particularly significant given Cult.fit’s ongoing plans to go public. The company has filed preliminary papers with the Securities and Exchange Board of India to raise fresh capital of ₹950 crore, along with an offer for sale by existing shareholders.

It may also look to raise up to ₹190 crore through a pre-IPO placement, which would reduce the size of the fresh issue. The listing is expected to mark a key milestone for the Bengaluru-based company, which has positioned itself as one of India’s largest fitness and active lifestyle platforms.

As of March 31, 2026, Cult.fit reported operating 708 fitness centres across 77 cities, with over 9.87 lakh paid members. Backed by investors such as Temasek, Accel and Schroders, the company has built a strong presence across both online and offline fitness services.

However, as companies move closer to listing, scrutiny tends to intensify beyond financial performance to include governance, ownership history and past transactions. In that context, disputes tied to a company’s early structure, even if legally separate, can draw attention at a time when investor confidence is critical.

Another IPO Bound Dispute Surfaces

The Cult.fit case is not the only instance of a co-founder dispute emerging just ahead of a public listing.

Rental furniture startup Rentomojo is facing a similar challenge, with its former co-founder and director Ajay Nain moving the National Company Law Tribunal to halt the company’s proposed IPO.

In his petition filed before the NCLT’s Bengaluru bench on March 25, 2026, Nain has alleged that he was misled into selling his stake in the company in 2023. At the time, he sold 2,222 equity shares, representing around 9.41 percent, under a share purchase agreement with the company’s employee benefit trust.

Nain has claimed that incomplete or inaccurate information was shared with him during the transaction, and has sought to have the deal declared void and his shareholding restored. The petition also seeks wider reliefs, including the removal of the company’s promoter from the board and restrictions on the powers of its directors.

Crucially, he has requested interim directions to restrain the company from proceeding with its IPO, including filing or pursuing offer documents with the market regulator or taking any steps towards listing.

The matter has not yet been listed for hearing, and Rentomojo has said it has filed caveats to ensure that no orders are passed without its representation. However, the case adds to a growing list of disputes that are surfacing at a critical stage for companies preparing to go public.

A Pattern That’s Hard To Ignore

Taken together, these cases point to a pattern that is beginning to surface more clearly as startups approach the public markets.

Disputes that may have remained contained within founding teams or early investors are now emerging at a stage where companies are required to open up their histories to far greater scrutiny.

At the centre of many such disputes are questions around shareholding, consent in key decisions, and the documentation of transactions that took place in the early years of a company’s growth. As these businesses scale and evolve across multiple entities, subsidiaries and agreements, gaps or disagreements from that period can resurface in more serious ways.

The shift towards public listings has also raised the stakes. Companies are expected to provide detailed disclosures, and any unresolved issues tied to ownership or governance can attract regulatory attention or raise concerns among prospective investors.

While each case turns on its own facts, the timing of these disputes suggests that the transition from private to public markets is not just a financial milestone, but also a point at which past decisions come back under the spotlight.

The Last Bit, Scrutiny Ahead 

For now, both the Cult Fitness dispute and the Rentomojo case remain unresolved, with the allegations yet to be tested in court. The outcomes will depend on how the claims around documentation, consent and disclosure stand up to legal scrutiny.

In the near term, such disputes do not automatically derail IPO plans, but they can introduce an additional layer of complexity. Regulatory filings may invite closer examination, and companies may need to provide further clarity on issues linked to their early structure and ownership.

For investors, these cases indicate that beyond growth metrics and market opportunity, the history of how a company was built can also come into focus at the time of listing.

As the pipeline of IPO-bound startups grows, so too may the number of such disputes surfacing at the final stretch. Whether they remain isolated cases or signal a broader shift will likely become clearer in the months ahead.