The lawyer representing Sridhar Vembu, founder and CEO of Zoho Corporation, has termed the California court’s $1.7 billion (around ₹15,000 crore) bond order in his divorce case as “invalid” and without legal basis.
Christopher C. Melcher, Vembu’s lawyer, said the order directing Pramila Srinivasan, Vembu’s wife, to secure the bond has not been enforced for over six months.
According to him, this itself shows that the order cannot stand.
“There has been no effort to enforce the bond order, which is a tacit acknowledgement that it is invalid. Sridhar has no ability to post a $1.7 billion bond, which highlights the absurdity of the ruling,” Melcher said in a statement posted on X.
After the court order became public, reports described Vembu’s divorce as one of the costliest in the world. With an estimated net worth of $5.85 billion, Vembu is among India’s richest individuals.
Responding to claims made during the divorce proceedings, Melcher said Vembu owns only 5 percent of Zoho Corporation Private Limited and had even offered to transfer 50 percent of his shares to his wife, an offer she allegedly refused.
He rejected Srinivasan’s claim that Vembu owns 88 percent of the company, calling it “completely false.”
The lawyer also criticised the bond order, which was passed on an emergency application filed by Srinivasan, calling it a “complete departure from the California justice system” with no legal or factual foundation.
Vembu and Srinivasan married in 1993 and have a son. After spending nearly 25 years in the United States, Vembu moved back to Tamil Nadu in 2020 to focus on rural development initiatives and manage Zoho from India.
Srinivasan filed for divorce the same year, alleging that Vembu abandoned her and their special-needs son and secretly transferred key Zoho assets, including property and shares, to relatives.
Dismissing these allegations, Melcher said it was illogical to claim that Vembu planned asset transfers years in advance to prepare for a divorce.
“The suggestion that Sridhar secretly transferred ownership to defraud his wife is ridiculous. He did not know in 2011 that there would be a divorce in 2021,” he said.
Melcher further alleged procedural lapses, stating that the court issued a receivership order against an individual who had no notice of the hearing.
“Basic principles of justice require notice and an opportunity to be heard. These issues are now under appeal,” he added.
However, Srinivasan’s lawyer, John O. Farley, disputed Melcher’s claims. Speaking to The News Minute, he said no court has declared the bond order invalid.
“The order is valid, remains in force, and Mr Vembu’s attempts to challenge it have not succeeded,” Farley said.
