- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Salman Khan's Dispute with Jerai Fitness Over 'Being Strong' Brand Reaches NCLAT
Salman Khan's Dispute with Jerai Fitness Over 'Being Strong' Brand Reaches NCLAT
Introduction
Bollywood actor Salman Khan has moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed his insolvency plea against Jerai Fitness. The dispute is over an alleged unpaid amount of Rs 7.24 crore linked to the fitness brand ‘Being Strong.’
Factual Background
Khan owns the trademark ‘Being Strong’ and holds exclusive rights to grant its licence and use it. In October 2018, he entered into a trade licence deal with Jerai Fitness, giving them the rights to use the brand name on their products. However, the agreement required that all major business decisions be approved by Khan’s sister Alvira Agnihotri or an authorised representative.
Procedural Background
In May 2025, the Mumbai bench of NCLT dismissed Khan’s plea for insolvency proceedings, holding that the claim was disputed in nature and more suitable for recovery proceedings rather than insolvency action. Khan appealed to NCLAT, which adjourned the hearing on 22 August 2025, and is now listed for hearing on 15 September 2025.
Contentions and Observations
- Disputed Claim: The NCLT observed that while an undisputed debt of Rs 1.63 crore along with GST dues from Jerai Fitness existed, the larger amount of Rs 7.24 crore claimed by Khan could not be considered undisputed.
- Pre-existing Dispute: Jerai Fitness contended that there was a pre-existing dispute and that it invested heavily in creating new product lines under the “X-tend” and “Proton” series.
- Revision of Royalty: The NCLT noted that Khan had earlier agreed to revise the royalty payable to him after Jerai Fitness sought relief due to business interruptions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reasoning and Analysis
The dispute between Khan and Jerai Fitness highlights the complexities of contractual agreements and the challenges of resolving disputes through insolvency proceedings. The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra will now consider Khan’s appeal and determine the fate of the dispute.
Implications
The outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for Khan and Jerai Fitness, and will determine the fate of the disputed amount of Rs 7.24 crore.



