Nawazuddin SiddiquiRS 100-crore defamation cases against his brother, Shamasuddin Siddiqui, and ex-wife, Anjana Pandea, have been dismissed by Bombay High Court. The actor reportedly accused them of abusing RS 21 crore from his bank accounts and slandered him in the media.As reported by Hindustan Times, a single judge for fair Jitendra Jain dismissed the case because Nawazuddin and his lawyer were not present in court to continue. A detailed copy of the court decision is not yet published.
Case traces back to 2008 family disputes
According to the report, the case traces back to 2008 when Nawazuddin appointed his brother, Shamasuddin, as his boss. He was stated to handle Nawazuddin’s bank accounts, review them, submit income declarations and pay other taxes.Over time, Nawazuddin claimed, he discovered that Shamasuddin had bought joint properties in both their names using funds from Nawazuddin’s accounts.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui claims that brother bought several common characteristics
According to the petition, while Shamasuddin claimed that the properties were in his name, documents revealed something else. The purchases included plots, apartments and farmhouses in main places such as Versova in Mumbai and even Dubai.When Nawazuddin confronted his brother, he claimed that Shamasuddin began his ex-wife, Pandey, to submit false cases against him. Several “false applications and FIR” were then submitted, including allegations of rape and cheating, says the petition.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui claims that marriage fraud
The report further reveals that Nawazuddin also claimed that before he married Pandea, he was told that she was a Muslim and unmarried. Later he found out that she was Hindu and already married to someone else. He accused his brother and ex-wife of trying to deceive him. “They have abused more than Rs 21 crore from the complainant’s account. He was shocked to find out that if people from his own family are of such nature, who can he trust, ”said the presentation.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui quotes private recordings and tax issues
The actor claimed that Shamasuddin had created a system to harm his image. He said his brother continued to record every important conversation, both officially and unofficially. “He is in possession of various videos and voice notes, which are personal. The petition added that Shamasuddin also failed to submit income declarations and pay GST, resulting in fees on RS 37 crore.
Family Actions affected Nawazuddin’s film project
Nawazuddin further stated that his brother and ex-wife encouraged family members to give false statements to the media to slander him. This, he claimed, caused delays in his film projects due to a negative atmosphere.“The plaintiff is in a very dangerous position in his life, where he has developed trauma and depression. He gets no new films because this negative atmosphere is created by his own family. They work as a syndicate to disseminate error information towards him, which has given his 23 years of hard work and reputation for the ground, ”added the presentation.He had sought instructions from the court to stop his brother, ex-wife and their agents from publishing deficient articles and demanded RS 100 crore as compensation.
Costume dismissed because of the actor’s absence in court
Since Nawazuddin and his lawyer were not present in court, the bench dismissed the action for “non-eating”. This meant that the actor and his lawyer did not take the necessary steps to continue with the case.Representatives of Shamasuddin, advocates Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Snigha Khandelwal and Farid Shaikh called the case baseless. “It was only submitted to push my client into their personal financial disputes,” Deshmukh said.
Nawazuddin siddiqui on the work front
Nawazuddin Siddiqui is on its way to its next edition ‘Thamma’ starring Ayushmann KhurranaThe Rashmika Mandanna and Paresh Rawal. The film will be released on October 21, 2025Disclaimer clause: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing reported by a third -party source. The details provided represent accusations made by the parties concerned and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing and a final judgment has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the charges are true.
