Akshay Kumar Moves NCLAT Against Edtech Firm Over ₹4.83 Cr Dispute

Akshay Kumar Takes Edtech Firm to NCLAT Over ₹4.83 Crore Payment Dispute

Bollywood Star Alleges Cue Learn Defaulted on Endorsement Deal Payments

Tribunal to Decide if Actor’s Claim Qualifies Under Insolvency Law

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 13, 2025:

Bollywood superstar Akshay Kumar has taken legal action against an edtech company, Cue Learn Private Limited, over an alleged ₹4.83 crore payment default. The case has now reached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), marking a high-profile clash between India’s entertainment industry and the fast-growing education technology sector.

The dispute revolves around an endorsement agreement between the actor and the company, which runs the popular learning platform CueMath. According to filings, Akshay Kumar claims he fulfilled all his contractual obligations, but the company failed to pay the full agreed amount.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when Akshay Kumar entered an endorsement deal with Cue Learn, promoting its online tutoring services. Reports suggest that the actor was promised a total payment of ₹8.88 crore for his participation in advertisements, campaigns, and promotional activities.

Akshay Kumar reportedly received ₹4.05 crore as the first instalment.
The remaining ₹4.83 crore was allegedly not paid, despite the actor completing his commitments.

Feeling aggrieved, the actor approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), seeking relief under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the NCLT dismissed his plea, stating that endorsement contracts may not fall under the definition of “operational debt.”

Unwilling to accept the decision, Akshay Kumar escalated the matter to the NCLAT, which has now agreed to hear his appeal.

What Akshay Kumar’s Legal Team Argues

Akshay Kumar’s lawyers argue that:

Contractual Compliance
- The actor completed all his obligations, including promotional appearances and campaigns.
- The company benefited from his brand value and visibility.
Operational Debt
- The unpaid dues should be treated as “operational debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
- Since the company defaulted, insolvency proceedings should be initiated.
Fairness and Accountability
- The case is not just about money but also about corporate accountability.
- If companies can use celebrity endorsements without paying, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Cue Learn’s Position

Cue Learn, on the other hand, has contested the claim. While the company has not issued a detailed public statement, its legal representatives have argued that:

The dispute is contractual in nature and should be resolved through civil courts or arbitration, not insolvency proceedings.
Endorsement fees do not qualify as “operational debt” under the IBC.
The NCLT was correct in dismissing the plea at the first stage.

Why This Case Matters

This case is significant for several reasons:

Intersection of Entertainment and Corporate Law
- Celebrity endorsements are a major part of India’s advertising industry.
- The outcome could determine how endorsement disputes are treated legally.
Defining Operational Debt
- The IBC primarily covers suppliers, vendors, and service providers.
- If endorsement contracts are included, it could expand the scope of insolvency law.
Impact on Edtech Sector
- India’s edtech industry has faced financial stress after the pandemic boom.
- A ruling against Cue Learn could raise concerns about the financial stability of such firms.
Celebrity Rights and Accountability
- The case highlights the risks celebrities face when associating with startups.
- It may lead to stricter contract negotiations and payment safeguards.

Expert Opinions

Legal experts are divided on the matter.

Corporate lawyer Srishti Ojha noted:
“The NCLT’s dismissal was based on a narrow interpretation of operational debt. If NCLAT broadens this definition, it could open the floodgates for similar cases.”
Media analyst Ramesh Menon said:
“Celebrities lend credibility to brands. If payments are withheld, it damages trust not only for the celebrity but also for the industry.”
Startup ecosystem observers believe the case underscores the financial strain many edtech firms are under, especially after the slowdown in venture capital funding.

Public and Industry Reactions

The case has sparked debate on social media and within the entertainment industry.

Fans of Akshay Kumar have expressed support, saying he deserves to be paid for his work.
Some critics argue that celebrities should be cautious when endorsing startups, as financial risks are higher.
Industry insiders believe this case could lead to standardized endorsement contracts with stricter payment clauses.

The Road Ahead

The NCLAT will now decide whether Akshay Kumar’s claim qualifies as “operational debt” under the IBC. If the tribunal rules in his favor:

Cue Learn could face insolvency proceedings.
The case may set a precedent for other celebrities facing similar disputes.

If the tribunal upholds the NCLT’s dismissal:

Akshay Kumar may have to pursue the matter in civil courts or arbitration.
The definition of operational debt will remain narrow, excluding endorsement deals.

Conclusion

The legal battle between Akshay Kumar and Cue Learn is more than just a financial dispute. It raises important questions about the rights of celebrities, the obligations of companies, and the scope of India’s insolvency laws.

As the NCLAT deliberates, the outcome could reshape how endorsement contracts are enforced in India. For now, the case serves as a reminder that even the biggest stars are not immune to corporate disputes—and that the fine print of contracts matters as much as the glamour of endorsements.