Murthy denies any reference to Zilingo's Bose in his article

Mahesh Murthy claimed he did not refer to Zilingo co-founder Ankiti Bose in an article that led Bose to file a defamation suit.

She filed the $100 million lawsuit on April 20, alleging Murthy damaged her "name, reputation and standing, and image". Bose sought an apology from Murthy. According to a report on March 1, his article in a publication refers to “one lady ran a popular fashion portal and took Sequoia’s money". Murthy said he wasn't referring to Bose. “My piece referred to an unnamed lady in the fashion business who committed malpractice. There are at least 35 female founders of fashion businesses that this VC fund has backed," Murthy added.

“If the complainant is saying that the piece refers to her, then she agrees she committed malpractice, so there’s no defamation. If the complainant is saying that’s not her, and that’s what I am saying as well, then there’s no defamation. The complainant can’t make two opposite claims, unless all she wants really is cheap publicity," Murthy added.

Despite denying mentioning Bose, Murthy urged regulatory scrutiny of Zilingo.

A few questions were also posed to Zilingo's investors and board by Murthy.

“News of this complainant’s financial shenanigans over the past year has hurt reputations of both countries. Could you please investigate the matter to get to the bottom of it?"

Also, Murthy called on Zilingo's investors to publish their investigations.

“You folks commissioned, investigated, and studied the reports that apparently showed multiple counts of financial malfeasance by the complainant. This reportedly led to you sacking her from the company. Your reputation’s going down here. Why are you all silent? Who are you protecting? Why haven’t you sued to recover the money?" told Murthy.

According to a statement, Bose declined to comment. “I have full faith in the competence of the judicial authorities to determine the merits of my complaint. I will not dignify Mr Murthy with any further air time at my expense," said Bose.

On April 21, Bose had argued that the article description was far too specific and couldn't have meant anyone else.