The lawyer representing Sridhar Vembu, founder and CEO of Zoho Corporation, has called the California court’s $1.7 billion (around ₹15,000 crore) bond order in his divorce case “invalid” and legally baseless.
Christopher C. Melcher, Vembu’s attorney, stated that the order directing his wife, Pramila Srinivasan, to secure the bond has not been enforced for over six months, which he says underscores its lack of validity.
“There has been no effort to enforce the bond order, which serves as a tacit acknowledgment that it is invalid. Sridhar does not have the ability to post a $1.7 billion bond, highlighting the absurdity of this ruling,” Melcher said in a statement posted on X.
The order, when it became public, was widely reported as making Vembu’s divorce one of the costliest in the world. With an estimated net worth of $5.85 billion, Vembu ranks among India’s wealthiest individuals.
Melcher also responded to claims made during the divorce proceedings, stating that Vembu owns only 5% of Zoho Corporation Private Limited and had offered to transfer 50% of his shares to his wife—a proposal she allegedly rejected. He called Srinivasan’s claim that Vembu owns 88% of the company “completely false.”
The lawyer criticised the bond order, which was issued on an emergency application by Srinivasan, describing it as “a complete departure from the California justice system” with no legal or factual foundation.
Srinivasan had filed for divorce in 2020, the same year Vembu moved back to Tamil Nadu to focus on rural development initiatives and manage Zoho from India. She alleged that Vembu abandoned her and their special-needs son and secretly transferred key Zoho assets, including property and shares, to relatives.
Melcher dismissed these allegations, saying it was illogical to suggest that Vembu planned asset transfers years in advance in preparation for a divorce. “The claim that Sridhar secretly transferred ownership to defraud his wife is ridiculous. He could not have known in 2011 that there would be a divorce in 2021,” he said.
He also alleged procedural lapses, pointing out that the court issued a receivership order against an individual who had not been given notice of the hearing. “Basic principles of justice require notice and an opportunity to be heard. These issues are now under appeal,” Melcher added.
However, Srinivasan’s lawyer, John O. Farley, disputed Melcher’s statements. 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.
