Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited vs Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 31 AUGUST, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

# CNR No. DLHC011499942016
EX.APPL.(OS) 3764/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025,
EX.APPL.(OS) 3763/2022
IN
+ O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 & EX.APPL.(OS) 31/2020,
EX.APPL.(OS) 1164/2020, EX.APPL.(OS) 1365/2021,
EX.APPL.(OS) 3650/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 3850/2022,
EX.APPL.(OS) 244/2024, EX.APPL.(OS) 839/2025,
EX.APPL.(OS) 1036/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1211/2025,
EX.APPL.(OS) 1212/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1545/2025,
EX.APPL.(OS) 1873/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1877/2025,
EX.APPL.(OS) 54/2026, EX.APPL.(OS) 55/2026, EX.APPL.(OS)
56/2026, I.A. 5552/2019, I.A. 5553/2019


DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED .....Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr.
Nabik Syam, Ms. Anindita Barman,
Ms. Shyra Hoon, Mr. Tanmay Arora,
Mr. Chirag Gupta, Advs.

versus

MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. .....Judgement Debtors
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Varun Garg, Mr.
Gaurav Modwil and Mr. Shreyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 1 of 213

Jain, Advocates for JD-1 with JD-1 in
person.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav
Kakkar, Mr. Sahil Arora, Ms. Sanya
Sud, Ms. Vaishali Goyal, Mr. Raahul
Sharma, Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Ms.
Akshita Sachdeva, Mr. Kaveesh Nair,
Mr. Arnav Chopra, Mr. Shreyas
Maheshwari, Mr. Gauhar Mirza,
Advs. for Fortis Healthcare Limited
Ms. Sayobani Basu, Ms. Durga Priya
Manda, Ms. Dhriti Batra, Mr. Jitesh
Lakra, Advs. for R-25
Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Adv. for
Respondent No. 29 and 34
Ms. Aditi Mohan and Ms. Palak
Bhargava, Advs. for non-applicant -
Luxury Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Shiven Varma and Mr. Rudraksh
Mathur, Advs. for Non-applicant -
RC Nursery
Mr. Prateek Yadav and Ms. Jyotsna
Punshi, Advs. for R-21 & 23
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Counsel
with Mr. Aman Gandhi, Mr.
Parthasarathy Bose, Ms. Lavina
Bhargava, Advocates for R26- EA
No.3763 of 2022
Mr Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Aditya Dewan, Mr.
Naman Tondon and Ms. Shivali Shah,
Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Advocates for JD
6& 8
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sunjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rishi Agrawala and Mr. Tarini
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 2 of 213

Khurana, Advs., for Respondent No.
28 (Indiabulls).
Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Sunjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rishi Agrawala and Tarini Khurana,
Advs for R-28.
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Tarini Khurana
and Mr. Om Shelat, Advs., for
Respondent No. 28 — Indiabulls
Housing Finance.
Mr. Saman Ahsan, Ms. Srijata
Majumdar and Mr. Rahul Sangwan,
Advocates for Respondent Nos. 29
and 34
Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr Adv; Mr Atul
Sharma, Adv; Mr. Aditya Vashisht;
Mr. Vinayak Uniyal, Adv; Ms. Saiba
M. Rajpal, Ms Renuka Iyer Adv, Mr
Aman Agarwal Advocates for R-22
Mr. Ateev Mathur with Mr. Amol
Sharma, Advs for Respondent no. 24
RBL BANK LTD
Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Prateek Yadav, Ms. Jyotsna
Punshi, Ms. Nayanika Singhal,
Advocates for R-21 (Yes Bank)
Mr. Aakash Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents Nos. 27 and 35
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. R-32
(DCB Bank)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
EX.APPL.(OS) 3763/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 3764/2022, EX.APPL.(OS)
1615/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 3 of 213

1. As early as in 1872, the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in
Bengal in General Manager of the Raj Durbhanga v. Maharajah Coomar
Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605: 20 ER 912 , has observed that
― the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree‖.
Even in 1925, after quoting the aforesaid Judgment, the Privy Council in
Kuer Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Limited, AIR 1925 Oudh 448
(PC) has observed as under:-
―Courts in India have to be careful to see that the
process of the Court and the law of procedure are not
abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make
courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who
have obtained decrees in accordance with their
rights.‖

2. It is tragic to note that even after such strong observations by the
Indian Courts throughout the years, nothing has changed even today.
Generations pass but decrees are not executed as the Judgment Debtor has
several arrows up in his quiver to defeat the rights of a Decree Holder and a
Decree Holder is unable to reap the fruits of the decree even after winning
two to three legal battles. The present case is also an example where a
Foreign Award was passed on 29.04.2016 which has yet not been executed
even after the Award has been upheld right up to the Apex Court. It is
settled law that procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to
retard it. The Courts must be careful to ensure that the decrees are executed
not only for the satisfaction of the Decree Holder, but to also hold the
majesty of the Courts and administration of justice. The Apex Court in
Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 325,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 4 of 213

has observed that ― it is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on
one count or the other and, on occasion, become highly technical
accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to
the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings
take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession draws
delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of
procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a
decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long
time. ‖
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The disputes between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtors
was referred to arbitration and an Award dated 29.04.2016 was passed in
Singapore. Under the said Award, the Judgment Debtors were directed to
pay Rs. 2,562 crore with pre-Award interest @ 4.44% and post-Award
interest @ 5.33%. It is the case of the Decree Holder that as on date,
approximately a sum of Rs. 5,300/- crore is due and payable by the
Judgment Debtors under the said decree.
4. Pending the challenge to the Award under the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996, the Decree Holders initiated proceedings for
execution of the Award which is the subject matter of the present
enforcement proceedings.
5. It is pertinent to mention that the challenge to the Award was rejected
by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 31.01.2018 which
was affirmed by the Apex Court vide Order dated 16.02.2018 in SLP (C)
4276/2018. The Applications filed by the Decree Holder in the present
execution proceedings are described as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 5 of 213

a. EX. APPL.(OS) 3763/2022 has been filed by the Decree Holder
seeking appointment of Forensic Auditor in respect of 17 banks
and financial institutions in terms of the directions passed by
the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in
SLP(C) No.20417/2017, Contempt Petition (C) No.2120/2018
and Suo Motu Contempt Petition being SMC(C) 4/2019.
b. EX. APPL.(OS) 3764/2022 has been filed by the Decree Holder
seeking appointment of Forensic Auditor in terms of the
directions passed by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated
22.09.2022 passed in SLP(C) No.20417/2017, Contempt
Petition (C) No.2120/2018 and SMC(C) 4/2019.
c. EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025 has been filed by the Decree Holder
under Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC for bringing on record
certain additional documents to demonstrate as to how the
Judgment Debtors have taken steps to fritter away the amounts
available with them with the aid and abetment of others on the
date when the decree was passed to defeat the decree.
6. While reviewing these applications, the Court will decide if a forensic
audit is needed to expose how the Judgment Debtors dissipated their assets
in direct defiance of the undertakings and the Stay Orders of the Apex
Court, and to lay down a framework in accordance with law to get the
money back from anyone who tried to block the decree from being enforced.
7. Material on record discloses that JD No. 1 and JD No. 6 held several
entities who ultimately have substantial controlling interest in an entity
called as Fortis Healthcare Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‗ FHL ‘ ) ,
through another entity known as Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Limited
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 6 of 213

( hereinafter referred to as ‗ FHHPL ‘), an entity which is wholly owned by
JD No. 1 and JD No. 6, whether directly in their own capacities or indirectly
through their other affiliated entities.
8. The chart depicting the shareholding of JD No. 1 and 6 in the
downstream entities completely controller by them have been succinctly
described in a tabular form by the Apex Court in Vinay Prakash Singh v.
Sameer Gehlaut & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 319 . The said table is reproduced
hereunder:-

9. It is pertinent to mention that on the date when the chart was prepared,
i.e., 31.03.2017, which is within one year of the date of passing of the
Award, 71.7% shareholding of FHHPL in FHL has come down to 52%
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 7 of 213

shareholding, meaning thereby that the Judgment Debtors had already
started dissipating their shares in FHL right from the date of the passing of
the Award.
10. In the execution proceedings which were filed immediately after the
passing of the Award when the Decree Holder expressed apprehension that
the Judgment Debtors would fritter away their assets and would make the
Award unenforceable. The Decree Holder filed IA No. 6558 of 2016 in the
execution proceedings praying that the Judgment Debtors be restrained from
alienating or encumbering their assets in order to preserve the decretal
amount. Counsels appearing for the Judgment Debtors assured this Court
that the interest of the Decree Holder would be protected. It is evident from
a Letter dated 24.05.2016 sent by the learned Counsel for the Decree Holder
to the learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtor. The letter which has been
quoted in several proceedings reads as under:-
― 1. I am concerned for my client, the Petitioner
abovenamed. The captioned matter was listed as Item
No.33 in Court No.21 of the Hon‟ble Delhi High
Court before a bench comprising of Hon‟ble Mr.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao. His Lordship has been
pleased to order that the matter be renotified on 22
August 2016. Further, while directing that, inter alia,
the Arbitration Award dated 29 April 2016, be kept
confidential, a formal protective order has not been
passed by the Hon‟ble Court on the strength of duly
instructed oral assurance tendered by Learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal (appearing for the
Respondents) that the Petitioner‟s interest would be
protected to the extent of the total sum awarded under
the Arbitral Award dated 29 April 2016, and there
would be no fait accompli. Mr. Kapil Sibal had also
submitted that even recording of his personal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 8 of 213

statement in the order would affect the respondent‟s
interest in the share market as some of his clients are
listed in the stock exchange.

2. We respect the fair assurance given by the Learned
Senior Counsel given to the Hon‘ble Court today, at
this stage.

3. Since the Hon‘ble Court has been pleased to allow
Petitioner‘s request to keep the Arbitral Award dated
29 April 2016, as well as the Agreement dated 11 June
2008, confidential, we request you to keep this letter as
well strictly confidential.

4. This letter is without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of my client.
Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

Nikhil Nayyar‖
(emphasis supplied)

11. The assurance was given to the effect that the interest of the Judgment
Debtors under the Award would be protected and there will be no fait
accompli . The assurance was not recorded by the Court because the Counsel
for the Judgment Debtors stated that any order from the Court would affect
the interest of the Judgment Debtors in the share market as some of the
companies held by the Judgment Debtors are publicly listed having shares
listed in the stock market. This undertaking by the Senior Counsel for the
Judgment Debtors was the first assurance .
12. When it was found that the asset base of the Judgment Debtors in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 9 of 213

FHL and other assets were being reduced despite the afore mentioned
assurance, the Decree Holder filed I.A. No. 618 of 2017 for an order
directing the Judgment Debtors to secure the awarded amount by depositing
the same with the Registry of this Court or by providing adequate security or
bank guarantee or by other means and also for an order directing attachment
of the movable and immovable assets and properties of the Judgment
Debtors and other properties in which the Judgment Debtors have beneficial
interest to the extent of the awarded amount. The application came up for
hearing on 23.01.2017. The relevant portion of the Order dated 23.01.2017
reads as under:-
― 1. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 13
reiterates the assurance given to the Court as
recorded in the letter dated 24th May, 2016
addressed by counsel for the Petitioner to the counsel
for the Respondents. Mr. Salve further states that
within two weeks and, in any event, not later than 8th
February, 2017, the particulars and assurance in the
manner sought by the Court will be furnished on an
affidavit by any one of the Respondents on behalf of
the rest of the Respondents.

2. List on 14th March, 2017.‖
(emphasis supplied)

13. This Order dated 23.01.2017 is construed by this Court to be the
Second Assurance tendered by the Judgment Debtors in furtherance of the
Letter dated 24.05.2016.
14. In compliance of the Order dated 23.01.2017, an affidavit of assets
was filed by the Judgment Debtors disclosing their asset base. The relevant
portion of the Affidavit dated 08.02.2017 filed by the Judgment Debtors
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 10 of 213

read as under:-
―4. All the Respondents had submitted their respective
affidavits disclosing their assets on 6.12.2016 to this
Hon‘ble Court. The aggregate book value of
investments held by all the Respondents (excluding
investments inter-se amongst the Respondents) as per
the said Affidavits is Rs.10,217.10 crores out of which
investments to the tune of Rs.1,409.93 crores are
encumbered leaving the residual investments to the
tune of Rs.8,807.18 crores as unencumbered. Further,
as on 31.12.2016, the book value of investments held
only by RHC Holding Private Limited (Respondent
No. 19) as on 31.12.2016 is Rs.6,510.54 crores out of
which investments to the tune of Rs.1,513.86 crores
are encumbered leaving the residual investments to
the tune of Rs.4,996.86 crores as unencumbered.

5. Respondent No. 19 also undertaken an internal
valuation of its unencumbered investments as on
31.12.2016 mentioned in para (4) above and based on
such internal valuations, the estimated [on a
conservative basis] fair value of its unencumbered
investments as on 31.12.2016 is approximately
Rs.3,453 crores.

6. Apart from the aforesaid investments, Respondent
No. 19 has also extended loans and advances (other
than loans and advances to other Respondent entities),
and after netting off the loans raised on current assets,
the amount of loans and advances recoverable is
Rs.252.59 crores as on 31.12.2016 which is over and
above the aforesaid investments.

7. There is no intention of selling any of the
unencumbered investments by way of shares held by
Respondent No. 19. A proposal which is under
discussion may involve the sale of 29,00,000 equity
shares of SRL Limited held by Respondent No. 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 11 of 213

and 7,05,000 equity shares of SRL Limited held by
Malav Holding Private Limited (Respondent No. 15)
to external investors in the near future. These shares
of SRL Limited are encumbered and thus not
included in the value of unencumbered assets
mentioned at paras (4) & (5) above. Obviously this
will have to be after obtaining the consents of the
security holders. The proceeds of such sale will have
to be utilized to pare down the debt the net assets of
the Respondents will thus remain unchanged. The
shares being sold [36,00,000] which are below 5% of
the share capital of SRL will be sold to an external
investor. The further proposal under consideration is
to merge SRL with another listed group company at a
later point of time. Even if this does take place, this
will have no implications on the net assets of the
Respondents. ”
(emphasis supplied)

15. The Judgment Debtors through this affidavit clearly provided another
undertaking to not sell any of the unencumbered investments held by them
by way of shares. This Court construes the said undertaking as the third
assurance.
16. The affidavit of assets filed by the Judgment Debtors on 08.02.2017
did not provide the requisite details as directed by the Court vide Order
dated 23.01.2017. Hence, this Court vide Order dated 06.03.2017 directed
the Counsels for the Judgment Debtors to file fresh affidavits of assets
reflecting information relating to all the unencumbered assets, both movable
and immovable, and not merely investments and loans.
17. Another assurance, being the fourth assurance , was given by the
Judgment Debtors on 06.03.2017 that they had no intentions to sell any of
the unencumbered assets. The Order dated 06.03.2017 is reproduced
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 12 of 213

hereunder:
― 4. It was further stated in the affidavit that there was
no intention to sell any of the unencumbered assets
by way of shares held by Respondent No.19. It was
stated that what was under discussion was only the
sale of the equity shares of SRL Limited which were
encumbered and thus not included in the value of the
unencumbered assets. It was stated in para 9 “the
value of the unencumbered assets declared is
sufficient security for the Award in the event it is
enforced. This fair value of unencumbered assets as
mentioned in para (5) does not include value of 5
crore equity shares of Fortis Healthcare Limited held
by the underlying subsidiary of the Respondents
which have been kept aside from the aforesaid
valuation for the sake of flexibility and debt
repayments of various group entities.”

5. As far as the shares held by Oscar Investments Ltd.
(‗OIL‘) Respondent No.14, it was stated in the above
affidavit dated 8th February 2017 that there were
investments worth Rs.1,075.40 crores (at book value
and after excluding investments in other entities which
were all unencumbered) as on 31st December 2016. As
per its internal valuation the estimated fair value of the
said unencumbered investments as on the above date
was stated to be Rs.854.46 crores. It was stated that
Respondent No.14 also had extended loans and
advances to various entities for Rs.506.10 crores.

6. Enclosed with the above affidavit dated 8th
February 2017 were two certificates issued by the
Statutory Auditors of Respondents 9 and 14 - M.S.
Sekhon & Co. A perusal of the said certificates reveals
that they deal with the unencumbered investments and
the loans and advances of Respondent No. 14 and
Respondent No. 19. The said two certificates do not
state if there are other movable and/or immovable
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 13 of 213

assets of Respondents 14 and 19 which are
unencumbered and available for being realised
towards satisfaction of the decretal amount.

7. In response to the present application an affidavit
has been filed by Respondent No. 19 in which it is
stated in para 6 as under:

―Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is stated that
in terms of the Order dated 23 January 2017, the
Respondents, as understood by its counsels, were not
directed by this Hon'ble Court to furnish
details/particulars of the unencumbered assets held
by them. The Counsel's (sic) and the Respondents
understanding of the said order was that the
Respondents were required to establish that they
held unencumbered assets, sufficient to meet the
Majority Award, if the same was held enforceable in
India."

8. The Court would like to clarify that the above
understanding by Respondent No. 19 of what was
required to be furnished in terms of the order dated
23rd January 2017 is not correct. The Respondents
were in fact required to furnish the information
relating to all the unencumbered assets, both moveable
and immoveable, and not merely investments and loans
and advances.

9. At this stage both Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel, appearing
for the Respondents state that they will, in two sealed
covers, filed with the Registrar (Original Side) within
one week, furnish the complete details/particulars of
all the unencumbered assets of Respondents 14 and 19
as of date. This will not be limited to investments, loans
and advances but include all other movable and
immovable assets. The Respondents 14 and 19 will in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 14 of 213

those details clearly indicate which of the investments
are in related/group companies and which in
companies whose shares are listed. It is clarified that
the purpose of this direction is to ascertain how much
of the assets of Respondents 4 and 19 are realisable
towards satisfaction of the decretal amount, as and
when that stage arises. Further furnishing of these
details by the Respondents will be without prejudice to
the objections they have to the enforcement of the
Award which will be heard by the Court on merits on
subsequent dates.

10. As far as the Chartered Accountants of the
Respondents are concerned, the Court directs M.S.
Sekhon & Co. to provide within ten days from today
certificates as per the books of account in respect of
Respondents 14 and 19 giving the following details:

(i) the value of all the unencumbered assets, including
both movable and immovable assets of Respondents 14
and 19, both the book value as well as the fair value;

(ii) where these assets include investments in equity
shares, preference shares and debentures, to indicate
to what extent are these investments in related/group
entities of the Respondents and in companies whose
shares are listed and which of these shares have a
condition of right of first refusal.

(iii) a clarification as to how much of the borrowings
reflected in the balance sheets are secured by way of
‗pari passu charge‘ on the present and future current
assets of the companies.

11. Copies of these certificates will be placed on
record by Respondent 14/Respondent 19 together with
an affidavit at least three days prior to the next date
with an advance copy to learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 15 of 213

Applicant.

12. Both Dr. Singhvi and Mr. Nayar state that if any
change is proposed in the status of any of the
unencumbered assets whose details are to be
furnished as directed hereinbefore, the Respondents
will first apply to the Court. ”
(emphasis supplied)

18. In pursuance to the said Order, certificates and affidavits disclosing
the value of unencumbered assets, investments etc. were filed before this
Court. Certificates had been filed by Oscar Investments Limited being JD
No.14 and RHC Holding Private Limited being JD No.19, disclosing the
value of unencumbered assets and investments.
19. The said certificates and affidavits dated 14.03.2017 disclosed the
assets of JD No. 14 and 19 as on 28.02.2017. As per the affidavit, JD No. 14
had unencumbered value of a value of 1953.70 crores having fair value of
Rs. 1204.78 crores. The fair value of unencumbered investments of JD No.
14 including related/group entities was valued at Rs.854.64 crores and as far
as JD No. 19 is concerned, the book value of unencumbered assets was
shown as Rs. 6,346.69 crores having the fair value of Rs.3579.26 crores and
the value of unencumbered investments was shown as Rs.3246.76 crores. By
way of these affidavits, a picture was projected before this Court that the
asset base of the companies was strong enough to cover the entire decretal
amount. In retrospect, in the opinion of this Court, this was only a method to
prevent this Court from passing any order directing the Judgment Debtors to
deposit the decretal amount or from ordering attachment of their assets. Had
the Court intervened at that stage by directing a deposit or attachment, the
present labyrinth of execution proceedings and the persistent frustration of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 16 of 213

the decree could well have been avoided.
20. The Judgment Debtors had maintained a stance that their asset base
lies in several companies, a few of them even listed in the stock exchange.
One of such listed companies was FHL held by the holding company
FHHPL. FHL is a public listed company in which JD No. 14 and 19 held a
controlling stake of around 52% up till March, 2017, through FHHPL. On
25.05.2017, FHL issued notice to its shareholders proposing that the
shareholding of foreign shareholders in the company would be increased.

21. Right after, the Decree Holder approached this Court by filing IA No.
7142 of 2017 to stop OIL/JD No. 14 and RHC/JD No. 19 from diluting their
100% stake in FHHPL or indirectly transferring FHHPL‘s shares in FHL,
demanding they maintain a 52% holding. Simultaneously, BSE disclosures
showed that FHHPL‘s actual stake in FHL had already fallen to 45.7%. The
unencumbered shareholding of the shares held by the Judgment Debtors in
FHL which was actually the backbone of the assets held by the Judgment
Debtors was slowly coming down.
22. On 19.06.2017, another assurance was given portraying a picture
before this Court that the decretal amount is secure and the Judgment
Debtors will not take any steps to defeat the decree by changing the status of
unencumbered assets. The relevant portion of the Order dated 19.06.2017
reads as under:-
―5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 14 and
19 submits that they are not seeking to change the
status of any unencumbered asset as disclosed to the
court and by mere passing of the impugned resolution,
the shareholding as disclosed, in terms of order dated
06.03.2017, shall not be affected. ‖

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 17 of 213

The assurance given on 19.06.2017, is the fifth assurance given to this
Court.
23. Despite of these assurances, the shareholding of JD No. 1 and 6 in
FHL through their wholly owned subsidiaries, i.e., FHHPL was depleting.
Further, a newspaper report had been published on 20.06.2017, i.e., a day
after the fifth assurance was tendered to this Court, that a Malaysian based
company called as IHH Healthcare Bhd. through Northern TK Venture Pte.
Ltd. (‗ NTK ‘) was set to acquire 26% stake in FHL. As such, a contempt
petition was filed before this Court alleging that the Order dated 06.03.2017
and 19.06.2017 was being violated.
24. The controversy surrounding the IHH–NTK transaction concerns the
acquisition of the controlling stake in FHL by IHH Healthcare Berhad
during the pendency of proceedings before the Apex Court relating to the
enforcement of the Award against the Judgment Debtors. It was alleged that
the transaction resulted in a substantial dilution of the shareholding of JD
No. 1 and 6, and involved an infusion of approximately Rs. 4,000 crores into
FHL. The sale consideration was thereafter proposed to be utilised by FHL
for the acquisition of healthcare assets from RHT Health Trust, Singapore.
The Apex Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Oscar Investments
Limited & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 641 , made an observation that the board
members of RHT Health Trust, at that time, consisted of family members of
JD No. 1 and 6.
25. The matter was taken up by this Court on 21.06.2017 wherein the
Counsel for the JD No. 14 and 19 again provided an undertaking to this
Court. The Order dated 21.06.2017 reflects the sixth assurance tendered to
this Court. The relevant portion of the Order dated 21.06.2017 reads as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 18 of 213

under:-
―8. Since the petitioner has raised an issue with
regard to the shareholding of Fortis Healthcare
Holding Pvt. Ltd. in Fortis Healthcare Limited, the
present order is being restricted to the value of the said
unencumbered asset disclosed in the affidavit.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondents 14 and 19 submits that the value of the
unencumbered asset comprising of equity share in
Fortis Healthcare Holding Pvt. Ltd. has been disclosed
as Rs 452.60 crores by Respondent 14 and Rs 1889.30
crores by Respondent 19.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondents 14 and 19 undertakes that, irrespective of
any transaction that the said respondent may enter
into, the value as disclosed to the court would not be,
in any manner, hampered or diminished.

11. The effect of the above statement of the learned
Senior Counsel for Respondents 14 and 19 is that the
sum of Rs 2341.90 crores (i.e. Rs 452.60 + Rs 1889.30
crores) would always be available and realizable as an
asset of Respondents 14 and 19, in fortis Healthcare
Holding Pvt. Ltd. towards the satisfaction of the
decretal amount as and when the stages so arises.‖

26. The Order dated 21.06.2017 was challenged by filing SLP(C)
20417/2017 before the Apex Court. Taking note of the continuous fall in the
shareholding of FHHPL in FHL, the Apex Court on 11.08.2017 passed an
order directing that status quo be maintained with regard to the shareholding
of FHHPL in FHL. The Order dated 11.08.2017 reads as under:-
― In the interim it is directed that status quo as on
today with regard to the shareholding of Fortis
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 19 of 213

Healthcare Holding Private Limited in Fortis
Healthcare Limited shall be maintained . ”

(emphasis supplied)

27. Pursuant to the said Order, FHL made a disclosure on 11.08.2017
before the Stock Exchange which establishes that FHL had knowledge of the
execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the disclosure is reproduced
hereunder:-
―Pursuant to Regulation 30 of SEBI (Listing
Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)
Regulations, 2015, this is to inform you that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its interim order dated
August 11, 2017, in the matter relating to M/s Daiichi
Sankyo Company Limited vis Oscar Investments
Limited & Others, directed that status quo as on date
with regard to shareholding of M/s Fortis Healthcare
Holding Private Limited, one of the Promoter Group
.
Entity in the Company be maintained ‖

(emphasis supplied)

28. The Apex Court vide its Order dated 31.08.2017 clarified that the
Order dated 11.08.2017 was passed in regards to both encumbered and
unencumbered shares of FHL held by FHHPL, by passing the following
order:-
―We, therefore, decline to pass any order in the matter,
save and except, to put on record that the interim
order of this Court dated 11th August, 2017 was
intended to be in respect of both the encumbered and
unencumbered shares of Fortis Healthcare Limited
held by Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Limited.
Consequently, there will be no transfer of the shares
to the extent indicated above. ‖
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 20 of 213

(emphasis supplied)

29. The slow dissipation of FHHPL shareholding in FHL has been noted
by the Apex Court in Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut & Ors.,
(2021) 16 SCC 319. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as
under:-
― 27. FHL is a public company and being a listed
company, it has to disclose its shareholding patterns to
the stock exchange. A chart showing shareholding
pattern of Fhhpl in FHL will show the position of
holdings at various stages:

Sl.
No.
Quarter ending Total shares Encumbered
shares
Unencumbered
shareholding
of Fhhpl in FHL
1. September 2016 32,50,91,529 27,21,59,955 5,29,31,574
2. December 2016 32,50,91,529 25,22,63,248 7,28,28,281
3. 28th Jan 2017 32,50,91,529 25,19,23,248 7,31,68,281
4. March 2017 27,02,41,529 23,18,01,440 3,84,40,089
5. June 2017 22,22,11,701 18,38,96,484 3,83,15,217
6. September 2017 17,80,26,597 17,53,94,820 26,31,777
7. December 2017 17,80,26,597 17,53,94,820 26,31,777
8. March 2018 34,20,451 6,89,084 27,31,367
9. June 2018 32,82,851 5,51,484 27,31,367
10. September 2018 11,53,091 5,51,484 6,01,607
11. December 2018 11,53,091 5,51,484 6,01,607


30. A perusal of the said chart is tell-tale. There is nothing on record to
show what is the business of FHHPL. FHHPL has only pledged shares of
FHL held by it to secure the debts taken by the downstream companies of
JD No. 1 and JD No. 6. The business of the downstream companies is also
not known. Loans were taken by the downstream entities for which shares of
FHL were pledged by FHHPL. The purpose of the underlying transaction
between the companies and the banks for which the shares were pledged has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 21 of 213

not been made known to this Court or to the Apex Court. This Court is,
however, conscious of one undisputed fact that on the date the decree was
passed, FHHPL held approximately 71.7% of the shareholding in FHL. By
September 2016, this holding had already diminished to 52%. At that stage,
FHHPL held 32,50,91,529 shares in FHL, comprising 27,21,59,955
encumbered shares and 5,29,31,574 unencumbered shares. The value of the
unencumbered shares alone, even after the First Assurance had been
furnished to this Court, was more than adequate to secure the decretal
amount. Yet, despite such substantial security being available, the position
today is startling; FHHPL no longer holds even one percent shareholding in
FHL. The complete dissipation of what was once a controlling stake, in the
absence of any satisfactory explanation, raises serious concerns that cannot
be ignored by this Court.
31. Multiple representations have been tendered before this Court. The
entirety of the share capital in FHHPL is beneficially held by JD No. 1 and
6, through their affiliate corporate entities, granting them absolute control
over the functions of FHHPL. Furthermore, undertakings through sworn
affidavits have been submitted by JD No. 14 and JD No. 19. Legally, these
undertakings are exclusively attributable to JD No. 1 and 6, by virtue of their
absolute 100% shareholding and control over both JD No. 14 and JD No. 19
which in turn held 100% shareholding in FHHPL.
32. The Apex Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Oscar
Investments Limited & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 641 has produced a table to
demonstrate the loans taken by the downstream entities of JD No. 1 and 6. A
bare perusal of the table demonstrates that several loans were taken by these
downstream entities against the shares of FHL held by FHHPL even after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 22 of 213

the assurances of JD No. 1 and 6. The said table is reproduced hereunder:-



Arbitral Award in favour of Daiichi Vol.5, 6,
29-4-2016
p. 8
18-5-2016 Sections 47/49Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 preferred
before the Delhi High Court by Daiichi being OMP (FEA)
(Comm.) No. 06/2016
Vol. 1, p.
24
Credit facility agreement containing a top up mechanism between
SFIPL
RHC and C secured by pledge of 68,50,000 FHL shares
Vol. 171,
pp. 117,
232
20-5-2016
First undertaking before the Delhi High Court by Respondents Vol. 1, p.
24-5-2016
78
30-6-2016





Vol. 200,
p. 9

Vol. 175,
p. 508

Vol. 176,
pp. 710,
743

Vol. 224,
p. 8
Standby letter of credit of Rs 304.5 crores extended by YBL to
LVL.

Rs 72.5 crores remains outstanding as on 23-3-2021.

YBL extended credit facility of Rs 304.5 crores to Ligare Voyages
Ireland Ltd. for refinance of loan granted by I CICI Bank and
Punjab National Bank for purchase of 5 aircrafts
19-7-2016
Put option agreement executed between F HHPL and YBL recording
that pursuant to various loans to group companies, YBL had a
right to call upon F HHPL to pay any amount due to YBL
Vol. 200,
p. 9, 44
27-7-2016
Vol. 200,
p. 10

Vol. 175,
p. 424
91,43,554 FHL shares were encumbered in favour of YBL to
secure Put Option
27-7-2016
Vol. 175,
p. 401
Cross-collateral by YBL over 2,65,02,852 FHL shares [w.r.t. 30-
28-7-2016
3-2016] to secure LVL [Rs 304.5 crores] facility
Submission before the Delhi High Court by the Respondents that
22-8-2016
there is no change in ownership of assets (second undertaking)
Vol. 1, p.
87
Vol. 173,
p. 160

Cross-collateral by YBL over 1,05,50,000 FHL shares [w.r.t. 2-5-
26-8-2016
2014] to secure LVL [Rs 304.5 crores] facility
Cross-collateral by YBL over 1,99,00,500 FHL shares [w.r.t. 20-2-
2015, 5-6-2015, 11-9-2015, 27-11-2015, 15-3-2016] to secure LAL
(Rs 100 crores), LVL [Rs 304.5 crores], LVL (Rs 130 crores), HTL
(Rs 200 crores) facility
Vol. 174,
pp. 240,
252
26-8-2016
30-8-2016 7,25,000 FHL shares pledged in favour of LVB against 26-10-2016 Vol. 202,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 23 of 213

facility p. 2
20,00,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL w.r.t.
standby letter of credit for USD 72.5 million executed
between R CMIML and ABL.
Vol. 169,
p. 424
30-9-2016
60,00,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL w.r.t.
standby letter of credit for USD 72.5 million executed
between R CMIML and ABL.
Vol. 169,
p. 424
30-9-2016
50,00,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL w.r.t.
standby letter of credit for USD 72.5 million executed
between R CMIML and ABL
Vol. 169,
p. 424
30-9-2016
10,00,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL w.r.t.
standby letter of credit for USD 72.5 million executed
between R CMIML and ABL
Vol. 169,
p. 424
30-9-2016
2,00,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL w.r.t.
standby letter of credit for USD 72.5 million executed
between R CMIML and ABL.
Vol. 169,
p. 424
30-9-2016
30-9-2016 Total 40,75,000 FHL shares stood encumbered in favour of RBL Vol. 201,
p. 4
4-10-2016 Release of 20,00,000 FHL shares by ABL [w.r.t. 29-9-2015] Vol. 197,
pp. 4, 44
OIL paid back Rs 161 crores to YBL against loan sanctioned on 20-2-
7-10-2016
2015
Vol. 224,
p. 6
Vol. 202,
p. 2
38,95,000 FHL shares pledged in favour of LVB against 26-10-
31-10-2016
2016 facility
Affidavit of assets preferred by Singh Brothers, OIL, RHC before the
Delhi High Court
Vol. 54,
pp. 31,
39, 46,
51
2-12-2016
LVB released 18,00,000 FHL shares against reduction of loan facility
9-12-2016
of 26-10-2016 from Rs 150 crores to Rs 100 crores
Vol. 202,
p. 3
Vol. 228,
p. 4
Total of 2,58,50,000 FHL shares stood encumbered in favour of
15-12-2016
YBL
YBL sanctioned a loan amount of Rs 565 crores to OIL Vol. 175,
p. 521
Rs 225 crores released immediately.

Rs 430.4 crores remain outstanding as of 23-3-2021.
Vol. 200,
p. 11

Vol. 176,
pp. 754,
786
23-12-2016
Vol. 159,
p. 35
Loan-cum-pledge agreement executed between Ambit, RHC
5-1-2017
HHPL
and F
Vol. 174,
p. 307

Cross-collateral [w.r.t. 27-10-2015] over 2,37,35,000 FHL shares to
10-1-2017
secure LVL [Rs 304.5 crores] facility by YBL
17-1-2017 [Daiichi
Delhi High Court order recording respondent's submission
that undertaking dated 24-5-2016 still holds (third
undertaking)
Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Malvinder

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 24 of 213

Mohan Singh, 2017
SCC OnLine Del
12975]
Pre 23-1-2017, 6-3-
ABL held pledges of 2,58,50,000 FHL shares Vol. 197,
p. 5
2017
Undertaking furnished before the Delhi High Court by the
23-1-2017
respondents (fourth undertaking)
Delhi High Court order recording Respondents'
8-2-2017
undertaking (fifth undertaking)
Vol. 1, p.
143
15-2-2017 Pledge over 58,31,000 FHL shares recorded in favour of
YBL
Vol. 174,
p. 255
OIL paid back Rs 339 crores to YBL against loan
23-2-2017
sanctioned on 20-2-2015
Vol. 224,
p. 6
Affidavit filed by Daiichi Sankyo annexing a list of all
outstanding charges of all respondent companies in the
enforcement petition till 27-2-2017 per filings with Ministry
of Corporate Affairs
Vol. 1, pp.
211-2281
28-2-2017
Sixth undertaking furnished before the Delhi High Court by
6-3-2017
the Respondents
Amendment to 27-7-2016 put option agreement
between F HHPL & YBL, recording that put option right
would now also cover an additional facility of OIL (Rs 565
crores)
Vol. 200,
p. 63
9-3-2017
Top up pledge over additional shares of REL created in
9-3-2017
favour of Ambit due to margin shortfall
Vol. 159,
p. 96
Cross-collateral by YBL [w.r.t. 2-5-2014] over 1,05,50,000
FHL shares to secure Put Option w.r.t. RHC (Rs 300
crores), LAL (Rs 100 crores), HTL (Rs 200 crores), LVL
(Rs 304.5 crores), Dion (Rs 130 crores), OIL (565
crores), F SSPL (Rs 250 crores)
Vol. 176,
177 pp.
797, 811
9-3-2017
Cross-collateral by YBL [w.r.t. 20-2-2015, 5-6-2015, 11-9-
2015, 27-11-2015, 15-3-2016, 30-3-2016] over 2,57,31,500
FHL shares to secure Put Option w.r.t. RHC (Rs 300
crores), LAL (Rs 100 crores), HTL (Rs 200 crores), LVL
(Rs 304.5 crores), Dion (Rs 130 crores), OIL (565
crores), F SSPL (Rs 250 crores)
Vol. 177,
pp. 815,
828
9-3-2017
Cross-collateral by YBL [w.r.t. 27-10-2015] over
2,37,35,000 FHL shares to secure Put Option w.r.t. RHC
(Rs 300 crores), LAL (Rs 100 crores), HTL (Rs 200
crores), LVL (Rs 304.5 crores), Dion (Rs 130 crores), OIL
(565 crores), F SSPL (Rs 250 crores)
Vol. 177,
p. 832
9-3-2017

Cross-collateral by YBL [w.r.t. 30-3-2016, 27-7-2016] over
3,56,46,406 FHL shares to secure Put Option w.r.t. RHC (Rs 300
crores), LAL (Rs 100 crores), HTL (Rs 200 crores), LVL (Rs 304.5
SSPL
crores), Dion (Rs 130 crores), OIL (565 crores), F (Rs 250
crores)
Vol. 175,
p. 463
9-3-2017
15-3-2017 14-3-2016 Credit facility between C SFIPL and RHC Holdings Ltd. Vol. 203,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 25 of 213

SFIPL
closed. C released all pledges over shares of FHL. p. 2
20-5-2016 Credit facility between C SFIPL and RHC Holdings Ltd.
22-3-2017
SFIPL
closed. C released all pledges over shares of FHL.
Vol. 203,
p. 2
March'
YBL released Rs 340 crores to Oscar against loan sanctioned on 23-
12-2016
Vol. 224,
p. 6
2017
Loan of Rs 150 crores sanctioned by YBL to LAL. Vol. 200,
p. 14

Vol. 175,
p. 530
Rs 10 crores remains outstanding as of 23-2-2021.
3-5-2017
Vol. 170,
p. 649
Standby letter of credit for Rs 100 crores executed between DION and
19-5-2017
ABL. 42,33,333 FHL shares pledged in favour of ABL.
Vol. 170,
p. 672
Short term loan facility for Rs 140 crores executed between DION
19-5-2017
and ABL. 64,16,667 FHL shares pledged in favour of ABL.
3,50,000 FHL shares additionally pledged in favour of ABL in
relation to standby letter of credit for Rs 100 crores executed between
DION and ABL.
Vol. 170,
p. 649
19-5-2017
Letter of intent issued by IHH Healthcare Berhad to FHL and
24-5-2017
connected entities in furtherance of a proposal for acquisition
Vol. 86,
p. 32
Vol. 159,
p. 95
Top up pledge over additional shares of FHL created in favour of
2-6-2017
Ambit due to margin shortfall
Release of 1,06,50,000 FHL shares by ABL [w.r.t. 28-3-2014] Vol. 197,
pp. 84-
92
7-6-2017
Pledge agreement in respect of 22,00,000 FHL shares already
encumbered in favour of RBL w.r.t. 29-11-2012 to also secure credit
facility w.r.t. 27-7-2012
Vol. 178,
p. 92
7-6-2017
Vol. 168,
p. 294
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 1,42,00,000 FHL
15-6-2017
shares already pledged [w.r.t. 30-9-2016] to secure Ligare facilities
Vol. 170,
p. 695
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 1,42,00,000 FHL
15-6-2017
shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017] to secure DION facility
Vol. 170,
p. 718
19-6-2017 Seventh undertaking before the Delhi High Court by the Respondents
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 1,42,00,000 FHL
15-6-2017
shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017] to secure DION facility
Eighth undertaking before the Delhi High Court by the Respondents
21-6-2017
[order under challenge in the present SLP]

Release of 60,00,000 FHL shares by ABL [w.r.t. 30-9-2016]

Release of 18,25,000 FHL shares by ABL [w.r.t. 30-9-2016]
20-6-2017 —
Vol. 197,
pp. 7, 8
23-6-2017
SLP (C) 20417/2017 preferred before the Supreme Court
22-6-2017 Vol. 1
against 21-6-2017 Delhi High Court order
ABL continued to hold pledge over 1,83,75,000 FHL shares Vol. 197,
Post 23-6-2017
p. 9
11-7-2017 LVB released 1,00,000 FHL shares on payment of Rs 1.6 crores Vol. 202,
p. 3
17-7-2017 Ambit issued a loan recall notice to RHC and called upon RHC Vol. 159,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 26 of 213

to repay entire loan amount with interest p. 97
17-7-2017 RBL issued a loan recall notice w.r.t. 29-11-2012 facility Vol. 201,
p. 7
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 45,83,333
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
RHC holding facility
Vol. 167,
p. 155
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 64,16,667
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
RHC holding facility
Vol. 167,
p. 180
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 10,00,000
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 30-6-2014 & 28-7-2016
ABL] to secure RHC holding facility
Vol. 168,
p. 204
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 45,83,833
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
Ligare facility
Vol. 168,
p. 319
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 64,16,667
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
Ligare facility
Vol. 168,
p. 344
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 10,00,000
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 30-6-2014 & 28-7-2016
ABL] to secure 30-9-2016 facility
Vol. 169,
p. 446
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 45,83,333
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
30-9-2016 facility
Vol. 169,
p. 470
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 64,16,667
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
30-9-2016 facility
Vol. 169,
p. 493
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 64,16,667
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
another 19-5-2017 ABL facility
Vol. 170,
p. 764
18-7-2017
Pledge agreement to create a cross-collateral over 45,83,333
FHL shares already pledged [w.r.t. 19-5-2017 ABL] to secure
another 19-5-2017 facility
Vol. 170,
p. 741
18-7-2017
18-7-2017 LVB sold 5,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs 7,44,96,752 Vol. 202,
p. 4

Vol. 173,
p. 176
Cross-collateral over 1,05,50,000 FHL shares [w.r.t. 2-5-
18-7-2017
2014] to secure LAL facility by YBL (Rs 150 crores)
Cross-collateral over 2,57,31,500 FHL shares [w.r.t. 20-2-
2015, 5-6-2015, 11-9-2015, 27-11-2015, 15-3-2016, 30-3-
2016] to secure LAL facility by YBL (Rs 150 crores)
Vol. 174,
p. 260
18-7-2017
Vol. 406,
p. 175
Cross-collateral over 2,65,02,852 FHL shares [w.r.t. 30-3-
18-7-2017
2016] to secure LAL facility by YBL (Rs 150 crores)
Pledge invoked against 5,00,000 FHL shares by LVB Vol. 202,
18-7-2017
p. 4
Pledge invoked against 2,80,000 + 7,25,000 + 38,95,000
19-7-2017
FHL shares by LVB
Vol. 202,
p. 4
19-7-2017 LVB sold 11,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs Vol. 202,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 27 of 213

16,61,19,096 p. 4
19-7-2017 LVB sold 10,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs
15,20,65,630
Vol. 202,
p. 4
19-7-2017 LVB sold 5,50,000 FHL shares and realised Rs 8,29,46,812 Vol. 202,
p. 4
19-7-2017 LVB sold 10,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs
15,06,83,015
Vol. 202,
p. 4
RHC repaid Ambit's entire outstanding Vol. 231,
21-7-2017
p. 2
Vol. 200,
p. 15
24-7-2017 Ambit released the pledge over shares of FHL and REL Vol. 231,
p. 2
Pledge over 2,98,15,406 FHL shares recorded in favour of
21-7-2017
YBL [w.r.t. 30-3-2016, 27-7-2016]
RBL released 2,00,000 FHL shares [w.r.t. 29-11-2012]

Total no. of encumbered shares of FHL with RBL stood at
38,75,000
Vol. 201,
p. 7
8-8-2017
RBL received Rs 3.20 crores [w.r.t. 29-11-2012] Vol. 201,
10-8-2017
p. 8
11-8-
2017 [Daiichi
Order by this Court directing status quo w.r.t. shareholding
of F HHPL in FHL
Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine

SC 1973]
Total FHL shares that stood encumbered in favour of ABL
11-8-2017
were 1,83,75,000
Vol. 228,
p. 4
Vol. 201,
p. 8

Vol. 23,
p. 42
14-8-2017 LVB sold 1,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs 1,49,79,271 Vol. 202,
p. 4
14-8-2017 LVB sold 4,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs 6,06,50,588 Vol. 202,
p. 4
14-8-2017 LVB sold 3,34,350 FHL shares and realised Rs
5,02,68,887.26
14-8-2017 Loan recall notice issued by RBL w.r.t. 27-7-2012 facility
Vol. 202,
p. 5
14-8-2017 LVB sold 65,000 FHL shares and realised Rs 98,60,578 Vol. 202,
p. 5
14-8-2017 LVB sold 1,50,650 FHL shares and realised Rs 2,28,54,809 Vol. 202,
p. 5

14-8-2017 LVB sold 2,00,000 FHL shares and realised Rs
2,99,49,031
Vol. 202, p.
5
Vol. 1, LOD
14-8-2017 Pledge created by Indiabulls
filed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 28 of 213

Kunal
Chhaterji p.
20
31-8-
2017 [Daiichi
Order by this Court recording that 11-8-2017 [Daiichi
Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1973] order operative w.r.t. encumbered and
unencumbered shares of
Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine
SC 1974]
Vol. 1, LOD
filed by
Kunal
Chhaterji p.
23
Singh Brothers tendered their resignation from the Fortis
8-2-2018
and Religare Board of Directors
Master Purchase agreement executed in Singapore for
acquisition of RHT assets for Rs 4650 crores. It was
endorsed by Gurpreet Singh Dhillon on behalf of RHT.
Vol. 1, LOD
filed by
Kunal
Chhaterji p.
24
12-2-2018
Singh Brothers resigned from the Board of Religare
14-2-2018
Enterprises Ltd.
Vol. 67, p.
33
15-2-2018
[Daiichi Sankyo
Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd.,
2018 SCC OnLine
This Court modified its order and allowed the banks to
enforce their pledges created prior to 11-8-2017

SC 3571]
YBL invoked its pledge over 8,97,81,906 FHL shares Vol. 200, p.
16-2-2018
16
ABL invoked its pledge over 1,83,75,000 shares Vol. 197, p.
20-2-2018
10
20-2-2018 RBL sold 33,75,000 shares and realised Rs 47,04,11,504 Vol. 201, p.
11
Pledge over 16,500 FHL shares released by Ambit Vol. 101, p.
1-3-2018
159

Invocation of pledges held by various banks caused fall
in shareholding of F HHPL in FHL from 71.7% to 0.66%
Vol. 1, LOD
filed by
Kunal
Chhaterji p.
28
March' 2018

RBL sold 80,000 shares and realised Rs 1,14,54,502
RBL left with 4,20,000 shares
Vol. 201, p.
11
24-5-2018
Board of Directors of Religare entities were
reconstituted and initiated insolvency proceedings
against 23 entities which owed Rs 2300 crores
Vol. 227, p.
28
Jun-Sep' 2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 29 of 213

Vol. 1, LOD
filed by Kunal
Chhaterji p.
36

Share subscription agreement executed between FHL
and IHH
13-7-2018
RHC Holdings' Affidavit informing this Court about
violation of 11-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] SCI order
by IHFL having pledged 12,25,000 shares of FHL
24-9-2018
Vol. 38
6-10-2018 Daiichi filed contempt petition before this Court Vol. 39, p. 5
Daiichi granted permission to file formal intervention
29-10-2018
application for intervention in NCLT
Vol. 119 @ p.
97
7-12-2018 Daiichi preferred application for intervention before
NCLT
Vol. 75 @ p.
10

REL preferred complaint under Sections 210, 212 and 447 of
Companies Act, 2013 against Singh Brothers and known
associates
Vol. 67
@ p. 62
17-12-2018
RFL preferred complaint against Singh Brothers and their
associates before Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police —
FIR 50/2019
Vol.67 @
p. 98
18-12-2018
SEBI passed an order consequent to an independent
investigation which found large scale diversion of funds from
the REL and its subsidiaries at the behest of promoters.

REL and RFL directed to recall the loans and take recovery
steps for entities belonging to promoter group
Vol.67 @
p. 145
14-3-2019
Complaint preferred by REL against erstwhile promoters and
their entities including Oscar Investments Ltd. with EOW,
Delhi Police for misappropriation to the tune of Rs 525
crores
Vol. 227
@ p. 29
22-3-2019
Vol. 119
27-3-2019 NCLT reserved order in the Daiichi matter
@ p. 106
5-4-2019 [Daiichi
IA No. 58004/2019 mentioned before SCI and interim stay
was granted against NCLT proceedings in favour of Daiichi
Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd.,
2019 SCC OnLine
Vol. 67
@ p. 28
SC 2226]
Application for vacation of interim stay dated 5-4-2019
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2019
SCC OnLine SC 2226] preferred by Religare
10-4-2019
Vol. 67
RFL preferred complaint against OSPL Infradeal Ltd., the
Singh Brothers and RHC Holding for misappropriation to the
tune of Rs 250 crores — FIR 64/2020
Vol. 227
@ p. 29
8-8-2019
Vide separate order, SEBI confirmed directions issued by it
11-9-2019
on 14-3-2019
Vol. 75
@ p. 231
RFL preferred complaint against ZEE Group companies,
21-9-2019
Singh Brothers and RHC Holdings for causing wrongful loss
Vol. 227
@ p. 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 30 of 213

of Rs 150 crores — FIR 82/2020
FIR 189/2019 registered based on complaint filed by RFL on
23-9-2019
15-5-2019
Vol. 227
@ p. 30
15-11-2019 [Vinay
This Court held Singh Brothers and officials of IFHL guilty of
contempt
Prakash
Singh v. Sameer
Gehlaut, (2021) 16
Vol. 226,
p. 4
SCC 319 : 2019
SCC OnLine SC
1480]
Vol. 120
6-1-2020 Charge-sheet in FIR 50/2019 filed by EOW
@ p. 131
This Court granted [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1438] time to Singh
Brothers to come up with proposal to purge contempt
Vol. 226,
p. 5
3-2-2020
Charge-sheet in FIR 189/2019 filed by EOW Vol. 121
23-3-2020
@ p. 269
15-10-2020 [Daiichi
Delhi High Court judgment
Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Malvinder
Mohan Singh, 2020

SCC OnLine Del
2551]

SEBI passed order directing initiation of adjudication
12-11-2020
proceedings against 10 entities for diversification of funds
Vol. 211
@ p. 9
11-2-2021 [Daiichi
Notice issued [Daiichi Sankyo (P) Ltd. v. Oscar Investments
Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 144] to lenders — Banks and
financial institutions by this Court

Sankyo (P)
Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd.,
2021 SCC OnLine SC
144]
Questions posed to lenders by this Court [18-2-2021 [Daiichi
Sankyo (P) Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., (2021) 16 SCC
310 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 112] order]
18-2-2021


(emphasis supplied)
33. The list of dates shows that on one hand assurances were being given
to this Court by the JD No.1 & 6, and on the other hand the shares were also
being encumbered against loans taken by downstream companies of the said
JDs. It has not been tendered to this Court as to what exactly is the nature of
business of these downstream companies, or why such loans were taken.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 31 of 213

The list of dates reflects that the shares of FHL held by JD No. 1 and 6
through their various subsidiaries, were being reduced contrary to the
assurances given to this Court. This is also evident from Paragraph 27 of the
Apex Court‘s Judgment in Vinay Prakash Singh (supra). The chart shows
that 5,29,31,574 unencumbered shares were brought down to 26,31,777
shares even after the status quo orders passed by the Apex Court.
34. This Court is firmly of the view that it refrained from issuing
attachment orders against the Judgment Debtors solely in reliance upon the
assurances of the Learned Senior Counsels of JDs that FHHPL's
unencumbered shares would be preserved to satisfy the decree. Had it not
been the case, this Court would have definitely passed attachment orders
directing the Judgment Debtors to deposit the money. This Court has,
therefore, been taken for a complete ride. The Judgment Debtors have
successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of this Court by engaging in a
calculated and systematic dissipation of assets over a period of time, as is
unequivocally borne out from the chart reproduced hereinabove.
35. It came to the knowledge of the Apex Court that even after the
imposition of status quo order, unencumbered shares of FHL held by
FHHPL had been dealt with by the Judgment Debtors and certain financial
institutions. The Apex Court observing that these transactions were in direct
contravention of the status quo order, initiated contempt proceedings against
them.
36. The Apex Court in Vinay Prakash Singh ( supra ) has commented on
the conduct of the Judgment Debtors and the various violations . The
relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as under:-
― 28. It is true that we have to decide whether there is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 32 of 213

any disobedience of the orders of this Court, but while
doing so we will make reference to the proceedings
before the Delhi High Court and the above chart to
show how both sets of respondents have violated the
orders of the Courts. As pointed out above, on 19-6-
2017 the learned counsel for OIL and RHC had made
a statement before the Delhi High Court that the status
of unencumbered assets as disclosed to the court would
not be changed and the shareholding as disclosed in
terms of order dated 6-3-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Malvinder Mohan Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
12874] shall not be affected. When the petitioner felt
that this order is not being complied with, it filed
contempt petition in the Delhi High Court. Within two
days another order was passed by the Delhi High
Court on the basis of the undertaking given to it.

29. The above chart would show that in the quarter
ending June 2017, the total shares held by Fhhpl in
FHL were 22,22,11,701 and the encumbered shares
were 18,38,96,484. Only 3,83,15,217 were
unencumbered.

30. This Court on 11-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC
1973] directed that status quo with regard to
shareholding of Fhhpl in FHL be maintained. On 31-8-
2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments
Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] it was clarified that
the order would apply to both encumbered and
unencumbered shares. On 14-8-2017, 30,59,260,
unencumbered shares were pledged in favour of IHFL.
As far as this violation of the order dated 11-8-2017
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] is concerned, in view of
the order dated 31-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC
1974] , the same stands condoned. This would further
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 33 of 213

mean that the unencumbered shares should have been
reduced to 3,52,55,957.

31. However, the figures of September 2017 show a
totally different situation. The total shareholding has
fallen to 17,80,26,597 and the unencumbered shares
to 26,31,777. This means that in addition to 30,59,260
shares pledged on 14-8-2017, 3,26,24,180 number of
shares were encumbered or transferred during this
period. There is no explanation by OIL, RHC, MMS
or SMS, as to how these unencumbered shares were
encumbered or transferred in total violation of the
orders of the Courts.

32. We shall now deal with the issue as to whether
IHFL and IVL had violated the orders of this Court or
not? To decide this issue, it would be appropriate to
determine whether IHFL transferred any shares which
were not encumbered up to 14-8-2017.

33. This brings us to the shareholding pattern of FHL
for the period between 1-7-2018 and 30-9-2018
because it is during this period that IHFL transferred
the shares. According to IHFL these 12,25,000 shares
stood pledged with them. Neither in IA No. 109493 of
2017 nor in the reply filed by Contemnors 1 to 8, is
there any clear-cut statement as to how and when the
different pledges were created. Reference has been
made to loan documents of 2016 and also to the
pledge of 14-8-2017. According to alleged
Contemnors 1 to 8, FHL was maintaining a demat
account with IVL. The case set up is that when the
value of the shares of IHFL fell in the market, to
make the security equal to the outstanding due to
IHFL, further shares were transferred by IVL to
IHFL. It is urged that this was done in view of the
instructions given prior to 11-8-2017 by Fhhpl to IVL
and IHFL. These transfers were done on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 34 of 213

the delivery instruction slips executed by IHFL as
power-of-attorney holder of Fhhpl. Even if this be
true, the alleged contemnors are guilty of violating
the orders of this Court. The order dated 11-8-2017
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] clearly debars Fhhpl from
changing its shareholding in IHFL. Vide order dated
31-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] , it was
clarified that the order dated 11-8-2017 [Daiichi
Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1973] would apply both to encumbered and
unencumbered shares. It was only on 15-2-2018
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2018 SCC OnLine SC 3571] that the order was
clarified that it would not apply to shares encumbered
prior to 11-8-2017 and 31-8-2017. A reading of the 3
orders makes it clear that no unencumbered shares
could be charged after 31-8-2017 at least. Even
if Fhhpl had given power of attorney empowering
IVL to transfer shares from its demat account to top
up the security value, that power of attorney could not
be used to violate the orders of this Court.
What Fhhpl could not do, could obviously not be
done by its agent or attorney. The shares which were
used to top up the security after 31-8-2017 were
obviously unencumbered shares prior to this date. The
plea is clearly unacceptable and a lame excuse for the
wilful disobedience of the order [Daiichi Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC
1973] directing maintenance of status quo which, as
modified, was to apply to the unencumbered shares.
The respondents were aware and cannot claim
ignorance of the purported agreements under which
they were required to top-up upon the securities, in
case of fall of market value of the shares. In other
words, the interim order passed by this Court was to
apply even if there was a fall in market value of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 35 of 213

securities held by the creditors.

34. To make this position clear, we may refer to the
disclosures made by FHL to BSE. The above chart
shows that in the quarter ending 30-6-
2018, Fhhpl held 32,82,851 shares in FHL out of
which only 5,51,484 were encumbered, meaning that
the balance 27,31,367 were unencumbered shares.
The disclosure of 30-9-2018 and 31-12-2018 both
reflect that the number of encumbered shares have
not changed but the total shareholding of Fhhpl in
FHL has reduced from 32,82,851 to 11,53,091. This
means that what was transferred were 21,29,760
unencumbered shares and not encumbered shares.
The transaction of 12,25,000 shares therefore is out
of the unencumbered shares because after 31-3-2018,
the encumbered shares were much below 12,25,000.

35. We are not entering into the dispute whether the
shares were transferred on the basis of pre-signed
slips or delivery instruction slips based on the power
of attorney but the fact remains that the official
record shows that these shares were not encumbered
and the contemnors have failed to place any cogent
material on record to show that these 12,25,000
shares were pledged on or before 31-8-2017.

36. IHFL, in fact, flagrantly violated this Court's
orders and made various transactions transferring
even unencumbered shares. The best course available
to IHFL would have been to approach this Court
seeking a clarification before it made the transfers.
This they did not do. We are, therefore, clearly of the
view that IHFL and IVL and their officials i.e.
Contemnors 1 to 8 knowing fully well that this Court
had passed an order directing status quo to be
maintained with regard to the holding of Fhhpl in
FHL, violated the order. There can be no manner of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 36 of 213

doubt that IHFL and IVL have violated these orders
and, therefore, we find Contemnors 1 to 8 who are
active Directors of IHFL and IVL guilty of knowingly
and wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court and
find them guilty of committing contempt of Court. We
will hear them on the question of sentence.

37. We afford an opportunity to Contemnors 1 to 8 to
purge themselves of the contempt by depositing the
value of 12,25,000 shares as on 31-8-2017 in the BSE
within eight weeks from today. In case the said
contemnors purge themselves of the contempt, we may
take a lenient view while imposing sentence.

38. We shall now consider whether MMS, SMS have
violated this Court's orders both in their individual
capacity and as Directors of OIL and RHC. We are
dropping contempt proceedings against Contemnors
11, 14 and 15 because nothing has been placed on
record to show that they were actively concerned with
the running of the two companies.

39. We have given detailed facts of the shareholding
of Fhhpl in FHL during the period of quarter ending
September 2016 to December 2018 hereinabove. As
far as these contemnors are concerned, the first
assurance given by them to the High Court of Delhi
was on 24-5-2016 when they assured the High Court
of Delhi that any dealings made by them would not
affect the rights of the petitioners. As on 30-9-
2016, Fhhpl held 32,50,91,529 shares in FHL out of
which 27,21,59,955 shares were encumbered shares
and 5,29,31,574 shares were unencumbered shares.
For various reasons, the total number of shares fell to
22,22,11,701 in quarter ending June 2017 and the
number of encumbered shares became 18,38,96,484
and the unencumbered shares dropped by about 1.5
crore shares to 3,83,15,217. Even after giving an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 37 of 213

assurance on 21-6-2017 to the High Court of Delhi,
unencumbered shares were encumbered or
transferred as is apparent from the above table.

40. The petitioner came to this Court when the order
dated 11-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] was
passed and clarified by order dated 31-8-2017
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] . During this period also
the total shareholding of Fhhpl in FHL fell from
22,22,11,701 to 17,80,26,597 by 4,41,85,104 shares.
MMS and SMS have not furnished any explanation as
to how this happened. The contemnors were the best
persons to disclose how this happened. They have not
done so. The only explanation we have before us is
about the pledge of 30,59,260 shares on 14-8-2018. It
is difficult to ignore this huge drop in shareholding but
even if we were to ignore this, we do not understand
how in March 2018, the shareholding fell to 34,20,451
and finally in December 2018 to 11,53,091. The
undertaking given to the High Court of Delhi was that
the shareholding as on 19-6-2017 and 21-6-2017
would be maintained. On 11-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo
Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine
SC 1973] , this Court injuncted the respondents from
changing the shareholding. On 11-8-2017 [Daiichi
Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1973] , this Court passed the order of
status quo referred to above. Despite that specific
order, on 14-8-2017 a pledge was created. This was a
violation of the orders of this Court. RHC and OIL
filed applications before this Court on 21-8-2017
praying for modification of the order and for a
direction that the order dated 11-8-2017 [Daiichi
Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1973] may be limited to the shares other
than those which already stood pledged to banks and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 38 of 213

financial institutions. Though separate applications
have been filed, Para 25 of both the applications are
identical and has been quoted hereinabove.

41. These applications were filed on affidavit and it
has held out to this Court that if the order dated 11-8-
2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments
Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] is limited to
unencumbered shares it would have no impact on the
availability of funds to protect the interest of the
petitioner. On the basis of this statement, the order
dated 31-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] was
passed and this Court took a lenient view on the matter
and disposed of the contempt without taking any
action.

42. Unfortunately, the actions of these contemnors
clearly show that these statements were made without
the least intention of complying with them. These
contemnors had already prepared a well thought out
scheme of diluting their shareholdings directly or
indirectly in FHL to defeat the rights of the
petitioner.

43. The explanations provided are not worth
consideration. According to SMS he was not even
taking part in the administration of these companies
and had gone into religious service. This is belied from
the fact that he has been attending most of the meetings
of the Board of Directors. The next defence taken by
both the contemnors is that they lost control over the
companies because the encumbered shares were sold.
As pointed out above it is not only the encumbered
shares but also the unencumbered shares which have
been transferred. In December 2017, the
unencumbered shares of Fhhpl in FHL were 26,31,777
and in December 2018 there were only 6,01,607
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 39 of 213

unencumbered shares. This shows beyond any manner
of doubt that there has been wilful violation of the
orders of this Court. It is apparent that the contemnors
knowingly and willingly lost control of FHL.

44. A litigant should always be truthful and honest in
court. One who seeks equity must not hide any relevant
material. In the present case, the petitioner has
violated the undertakings given to the Delhi High
Court as also the orders of this Court. The Delhi High
Court will deal with the issue insofar as the
undertakings made before it are concerned. We have
no doubt in our mind that Contemnors 9 and 10 have
also wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed the orders
of this Court. What has happened during the period
when this matter has been pending in this Court is
that the shareholdings of Fhhpl, which is wholly
owned by OIL and RHC which in turn are controlled
by SMS and MMS, have virtually vanished in
FHL. Fhhpl owns no shares in FHL now. It may be
true that IHH Healthcare Bhd. (Malaysian Company)
through its actually owned subsidiary Northern TK
Venture Pte Ltd. is now the majority stakeholder but
that is due to allotment of preferential shares. In
addition to the preferential shares allotted to them,
the shares which were owned by MMS and SMS
through their holdings in Fhhpl in FHL have
vanished into thin air and the only conclusion which
we can draw is that this was a well thought out plan
to deprive the petitioner from the amounts due to it.

45. No person or institution howsoever powerful, can
be permitted to misuse the process of the court.
Contempt of court can be committed in various ways.
Civil contempt is defined under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 under Section 2(b) to mean wilful
disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order
of the Court, of wilful breach of an undertaking given
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 40 of 213

to the Court. Criminal contempt has been defined
under Section 2(c) to include anything which
scandalises or tends to scandalise or lower or tends to
lower the authority of the court. Criminal contempt
also means any act which prejudices or interferes or
tends to interfere with the due course of judicial
proceedings.

46. As far as the present case is concerned, the conduct
of Contemnors 9 and 10 definitely undermines the
authority of the Court. We are dealing with an
international arbitration which has fructified into an
award but by misusing the legal process Contemnors 9
and 10 have successfully avoided paying off the
petitioner. In our view, action for committing criminal
contempt could have been taken against Contemnors 9
and 10, but by taking a lenient view of the matter we
are only treating it as a civil contempt.

47. The order passed by this Court on 11-8-2017
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] with a clarification on 31-
8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments
Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] , and modification
made on 15-2-2018 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3571] , is not
to be read in isolation but along with the solemn
undertakings and assurances given by the contemnors
on as many as five occasions before the Delhi High
Court, the last one being as late as on 21-6-2017.
These assurances were to the effect that even if the
court permits sale of encumbered shares for payment
of debt, it would not have any impact on the (potential)
creditors and availability of the funds would only pare
down the debt and increase the value of the shares.
Contrary to the aforesaid solemn assurances and
undertakings, which were repeatedly reiterated to
procure orders, the shareholding went into a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 41 of 213

downward spiral, as is apparent from the table in para
27. There was a significant decline in the total
number of shares held by Fhhpl, both encumbered
and unencumbered, which fell down from
27,21,59,955 and 5,29,31,574 in September 2016 to
5,51,484 and 6,01,607 in December 2018. The
aforesaid fact with the impact on valuation was never
brought to the notice of the Court and was concealed
with the knowledge that these facts, if brought to the
notice, would have substantial bearing on the orders
that would be passed to protect the interest of the
petitioner.

48. What is even more shocking and clearly
contemptuous is the manner in which, in a well
thought out plan, the authorised capital of FHL was
increased with the objective and purpose to transfer
controlling interest in the company. Consequently,
the controlling interest of MMS and SMS came down
in FHL, as the company changed hands. Controlling
interest held by the majority shareholders has
considerable market value. Further, the amount
brought in by a foreign shareholder, who now has the
controlling interest in FHL, has been transferred in a
dubious and clandestine manner without full facts
being brought on record. This amount is not available
for payment and satisfaction of the award. About Rs
4600 crores has been transferred in a very hurried
and clandestine manner to a trust registered in
Singapore i.e. RHT Health Trust (RHT).
Coincidentally, Respondents 9 and 10 themselves or
through their holding companies were at one time the
biggest unitholders in the trust. It is obvious that the
respondents being debtors are manoeuvring,
transferring and converting the assets of value, with
the desire and intent that the petitioners would not be
able to recover the decretal amount as per the award.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 42 of 213

49. We would, therefore, not read the orders of this
Court in isolation but along with the five solemn
assurances and undertakings given before the High
Court. Directions given by this Court and the orders
passed were in light of the fact that the contemnors
always projected that the said assurances and
undertakings were binding and to be adhered to.

50. There can be no manner of doubt that
Contemnors 9 and 10 have changed the shareholding
of Fhhpl in FHL knowingly and wilfully. They have
done this with a view to defeat the rights of the
petitioner. They have also wilfully and
contumaciously violated the orders of this Court
dated 11-8-2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1973] , 31-8-
2017 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments
Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1974] and 15-2-2018
[Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar Investments Ltd.,
2018 SCC OnLine SC 3571] . They are accordingly
held guilty of committing contempt of court. We shall
hear them on the question of sentence. We give one
chance to Contemnors 9 and 10 to purge themselves
of the contempt. ‖
(emphasis supplied)

37. JD No. 1 and 6 were provided with an opportunity to purge
themselves of the contempt by making a deposit of Rupees 1170.95 crores
before the Apex Court within eight weeks from the date of Judgment dated
15.11.2019.

38. The contempt proceedings were thereafter finally dealt with by the
Apex Court on 22.09.2022 in Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Oscar
Investments Limited & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 641 , wherein the Apex Court
has come to the conclusion that the Judgment Debtors kept dissipating the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 43 of 213

unencumbered shares despite various undertakings which depleted the asset
base to satisfy the decretal amount. The banks and financial institutions also
filed various affidavits to show that they had not violated the undertaking
given to this Court and the Apex Court. The Apex Court thereafter
summarised the questions that arose for consideration. The JD No. 1 and 6
were given a chance to purge themselves of contempt, however, on failure to
do so, they were sent to six months of imprisonment. The relevant portion of
the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Daiichi Sankyo Company
Limited v. Oscar Investments Limited & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 641, reads as
under:-
― 31. In the backdrop of these submissions, following
questions arise for our consideration:

31.1. Whether the acts of commission or omission on
part of Contemnors 9 and 10 and the entities
controlled by them, were calculated to put the assets of
the companies under their control beyond the reach of
Daiichi?

31.2. Having given clear assurances to the High Court
and this Court, whether such acts of commission and
omission on part of Contemnors 9 and 10 amount to
contempt of the orders passed by the High Court and
this Court?

31.3. Whether the banks and financial institutions sold
the shares which were pledged with them, purely as a
matter of commercial expediency or whether there was
any deliberate act of defiance to defeat the rigour and
width of the orders passed by the High Court and this
Court?

31.4. Whether the acts committed by them were in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 44 of 213

connivance with Contemnors 9 and 10?

31.5. Whether the transactions entered into by or with
IHH/NTK were bona fide or whether there was a
deliberate attempt to defeat the processes of Court and
thereby keep the assets beyond the reach of Daiichi?‖

39. The Apex Court after sentencing the Judgment Debtors, directed as
under:-
― 32. The first two questions raised hereinabove need
no further elaboration as the conduct of Contemnors 9
and 10 was considered and they were held guilty of
having committed contempt of the orders passed by the
High Court and this Court. While holding them guilty,
by its judgment and order dated 15-11-2019 [Vinay
Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, (2021) 16 SCC 319
: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1480] this Court had given
them an opportunity to purge themselves of contempt.
Therefore, insofar as the role played by Contemnors 9
and 10 is concerned, the matter rests in a narrow
compass i.e. whether they have purged themselves of
contempt or not? The kind of assets that have been
offered by said Contemnors 9 and 10 in their affidavit
are so inadequate that it is impossible to satisfy the
amount awarded in favour of Daiichi in the foreign
arbitral award. We are, thus, left with no alternative
but to hold that said Contemnors 9 and 10 have failed
to purge themselves of contempt. As a matter of fact,
there is no genuine attempt on their part. The question
then comes up is about the quantum of sentence.
Considering the enormity of their actions, in our view,
the maximum sentence that can be awarded, must be
imposed. We, therefore, sentence them to suffer six
months imprisonment and impose fine of Rs 5000 for
having committed contempt of court with default
sentence of two months.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 45 of 213

33. That takes us to the next set of questions
regarding the role played by the noticee banks and
financial institutions. With the assistance of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties we made an
attempt to go through the documents placed on
record but find ourselves unable to come to a definite
conclusion whether there were antecedent
arrangements which enabled said banks and
financial institutions to keep attaching the shares and
keep on converting large quantity of shares from the
compartment of “unencumbered shares” to that of
“encumbered shares” and thereafter keep disposing
of said shares.

34. We are also unable to come to a clear conclusion
whether all those actions were protected by the order
dated 15-2-2018 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3571] passed
by this Court enabling the banks and financial
institutions to sell encumbered shares. This exercise
will require going into issues of fact, comparing of
the documents and accounts as well as considering
the expediency whether the shares were required to
be sold in order to keep affording comfort and
sufficient security to said banks and financial
institutions.

35. It is true that it is possible for a court, while
exercising jurisdiction in contempt, to pass
consequential orders in the nature of sequestration
orders to secure the properties which the contemnor
had put beyond the reach of the court or which were
acquired by the contemnor for himself or for any
other person or entity by his wrongful acts. But there
are two difficulties to undertake such exercise in
contempt jurisdiction in the present matter. First,
these noticees were not parties to the initial
proceedings in this Court. Secondly, they have come
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 46 of 213

up with a defence that all their acts were purely
commercial in nature and it was the expediency of the
situation which demanded such actions on their part.
These issues need to be gone into at the appropriate
stage(s). But before reacting that level, a factual
analysis in the form of forensic audit as suggested by
Daiichi is also required to be undertaken. Such
exercise will certainly help the court in arriving at an
appropriate conclusion and in passing appropriate
orders or directions. We, therefore, refrain from
passing any directions against the said banks and
financial institutions for the present but observe that
the executing court or any other authority competent
to exercise such power shall do well to appoint
foreign auditor(s) to undertake proper exercise to
unravel the truth.

36. Insofar as the issues concerning the acquisition of
proprietary interests in hospitals and diagnostics
centres at a price of Rs 4666 crores by FHL is
concerned, facts on record are not quite adequate to
enter into such arena. Prima facie, it appears to be
acquisition of proprietary interest to subserve the
business structure of FHL as suggested by IHH/NTK.
But again, that is a matter to be enquired into and
facts to be assessed in the light of any forensic
analysis, if the court so deems appropriate.

37. In the premises we pass the following directions:

37.1. Contemnors 9 and 10 are sentenced to suffer six
months' imprisonment and pay fine in the sum of Rs
5000 each within four weeks from today. In case of
default of payment of fine, the contemnors shall
undergo further imprisonment of two months.

37.2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20417 of 2017,
Contempt Petition No. 2120 of 2018 in SLP (C) No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 47 of 213

20417 of 2017 and Suo Motu Contempt Petition (C)
No. 4 of 2019 are disposed of with a direction to the
High Court, before whom the proceedings in execution
are pending, to consider appointment of foreign
auditor(s) to analyse the transactions entered into by
the noticee banks and financial institutions and to look
into whether such transactions were bona fide and
entered into in commercial expediency.

37.3. The executing court may also consider issuing
appropriate process and appointing foreign auditor(s)
to analyse the transactions entered into between FHL
and RHT and other related transactions.

37.4. The amount of Rs 17,93,40,000 which stands
deposited in the Registry of this Court shall be
transmitted to the executing court along with interest
accrued thereon. The said amount shall be available to
the executing court while considering execution of the
instant foreign arbitral award.

37.5. Certain shares which are still lying with the
noticee banks and financial institutions, for example,
the shares of FHL pledged with and continued to be
held by RBL Bank which were dealt with in the order
dated 15-4-2021 [Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3371] passed
by this Court, shall be available to the executing court
and shall abide by such order as the executing court
may deem appropriate to pass.

37.6. All the properties offered by Contemnors 9 and
10 in their attempt to partially purge themselves of
contempt shall also be available to the executing court
and shall abide by such directions as the executing
court may deem appropriate to pass. Consequently,
there shall be attachment of all those assets which may
await the decision or direction to be passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 48 of 213

executing court in due course of time which may also
include the questions whether the assets in question
apparently in the names of certain persons/entities can
be proceeded against.

37.7. Needless to say that it shall be open to the
executing court to pass such directions as the facts and
circumstances presented before it may justify.

37.8. All pending proceedings before the concerned
courts, including the first information reports and
proceedings before NCLT shall be taken to logical
conclusion in accordance with law.

37.9. The Registry shall send copies of all volumes,
submissions and pleadings filed by the parties in the
instant matters to the executing court for facility and
record.‖

(emphasis supplied)

40. In pursuance to these directions and since all the records have been
transmitted to this Court, the applications for such forensic audits is also
before this Court for consideration.
41. EX. APPL.(OS) 3764/2022 has been filed by the Decree Holder
seeking appointment of Forensic Auditor in terms of the directions passed
by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in SLP(C)
No.20417/2017, Contempt Petition (C) No.2120/2018 and SMC(C) 4/2019.
42. EX.APPL.(OS) 1615/2025 has been filed by the Decree Holder under
Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC for bringing on record certain additional
documents to demonstrate as to how the Judgment Debtors have taken steps
to fritter away the amounts available with them on the date when the decree
was passed to defeat the decree.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 49 of 213

43. EX. APPL.(OS) 3763/2022 has been filed by the Decree Holder
seeking appointment of Forensic Auditor in respect of 17 banks and
financial institutions.
SUBMISSIONS OF MR. ARVIND NIGAM, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE FOR THE DECREE HOLDER
44. The principal attack of the Decree Holder is on the complicity and
connivance of FHL in its erstwhile avatar, that is, when JD No. 1 and 6
were at the saddle and at the helm of affairs of FHL. It is the case of the
Decree Holder that the Apex Court in the aforesaid two Judgments, i.e.,
Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 319 and
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Oscar Investments Limited & Ors.,
(2023) 7 SCC 641, has held that JD No. 1 and 6 have wilfully and
contumaciously violated the undertakings given to this Court and acted in
contravention to the Orders of the Apex Court.
45. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder that
the present execution proceedings instituted by the Decree Holder has been
pending for almost a decade. Notably, when the Decree Holder initiated the
present proceedings in 2016, the Judgment Debtors had a significant net
worth which was much more than the decretal amount. The decretal sum due
to the Decree Holder was a principal sum of Rs. 2,562 crores, with further
additional pre-award interest (4.44%) and post-award interest (5.33%),
aggregating to more than Rs. 5200 crores as on date. However, even though
9 years have passed, the Decree Holder has only been able to recover
approximately Rs. 250 crores; and in a stunning and extremely frustrating
turn of events, the entire net worth of the Judgment Debtors has vanished
into thin air in contemptuous disregard of undertakings proffered to this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 50 of 213

Court.
46. He states that the major bulk of the net worth of the Judgment Debtors
were the unencumbered shares indirectly owned by the Judgment Debtors in
two listed entities, namely FHL and M/s. Religare Enterprises Limited
(―REL‖). It is stated that in September 2016, the Judgment Debtors, and
more specifically JD No. 14 and JD No. 19, owned the controlling stake in
FHL, through their wholly owned subsidiary, FHHPL. The Apex Court
noted in Vinay Prakash Singh ( supra ) between September 2016 and
December 2018, the shareholding of the Judgment Debtors in FHL
(specifically the unencumbered shares) declined from 5.29 crore shares to
6.01 lakh odd shares. He states that this reduction in shareholding has been
characterized by the Apex Court in paragraph 44 of the Vinay Prakash Singh
( supra ) as having ―vanished into thin air‖.
47. The Learned Senior Counsel states that it is precisely this
disappearance of nearly 5.29 crore unencumbered FHL shares, which
otherwise would have been capable of substantially satisfying the decree
under execution, that forms the premise of the present applications of the
Decree Holder seeking forensic audit. He states that these shares were
ostensibly made available to the Decree Holder and were the subject matter
of six express undertakings made to this Court. It is the case of the Decree
Holder that pursuant to the undertakings, these 5.29 crore unencumbered
FHL shares were sequestered in favour of the Decree Holder, were custodia
legis, and the dissipation of these shares with the active abetment of FHL
represents an act seeped in contempt.
48. The Learned Senior Counsel argues that the six undertakings given to
this Court constituted as an unfractured thread which also acted as injunction
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 51 of 213

orders against the Judgment Debtors to not alienate the shareholding in FHL
held by them through FHHPL.
49. He states that this Court by its Judgment dated 24 April 2023 in E.A.
3651/2022 has made observations on the violation of the orders by the
Judgment Debtors by stating as under:-
―67… Those five assurances and the injunction orders
of the Supreme Court constitute an unfractured thread
forming part of Daiichi‘s efforts to enforce the Foreign
Award. It must also be noted that the shares in
question came to be sequestered in terms of directions
and injunctions issued by this Court as well as the
Supreme Court in relation to the Foreign Award only.
The shareholding of FHHPL in FHL was directed to
be maintained as frozen at levels prevailing on the
date of the orders passed for the purposes of
satisfaction of the foreign award. The attenuation of
shareholdings in FHL resulting from the sale of
those shares was in apparent violation of the
sequestration orders. Any claims which could have
been possibly asserted by any third party thus stood
eclipsed by virtue of those orders. Those orders were
essentially aimed at tackling the looming threat of
dissipation of assets by the JD‟s and for ensuring that
these assets do not fall outside the reach of Daiichi
during the pendency of the enforcement proceedings
relating to the foreign award.”
(emphasis supplied)

50. It is stated that FHL was fully aware of the fact that the Singh
Brothers, who were indirectly holding the controlling equity of FHL, had
suffered a decree for recovery of an amount, aggregating to over Rs. 5200
crores (including interest) as on date. The Learned Senior Counsel states that
it is noteworthy that the Judgment Debtor No. 1 was the Managing Director
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 52 of 213

and Chairman, while his brother, Judgment Debtor No. 6, was the Director
and Vice- Chairman of FHL till February 2018. Therefore, FHL had
knowledge of all the undertakings given to this Court by its directors.
51. He states that FHL is a company which is listed on both the National
Stock Exchange (‗ NSE ‘) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (‗ BSE ‘). The
underlying premise of listing a company on the stock exchange is to make
available its shares to the investing public for the purpose of sale and
purchase. To ensure that fairness and transparency are maintained in the
securities markets, the main function of the regulator, i.e., the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (―SEBI‖), is to maintain information parity so as to
ensure that each member of the investing public has access to the same
information as the other. An action premised on knowledge which is
secretive would give an unfair advantage to the possessor of such knowledge
as against other members of the investing public; and thus, any such action
would be to the detriment of others.
52. He states that since FHL is a listed company, timely disclosures by
listed entities to the stock exchanges and the requirement to ensure that
those persons who are designated as the promoters of a company act in a
manner which is not unfair to or in detriment of the investing public
becomes mandatory. SEBI Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 2015
(― PIT Regulations ‖), SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and
Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (― SAST Regulations ‖) are the subordinate
legislations to regulate best practices by a listed company and their
promoters.
53. The PIT Regulations mandate that all listed entities must have a
policy to prevent insider trading. The PIT Regulations require the board of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 53 of 213

directors of every listed company to ensure that the chief executive officer
or managing director formulates a code of conduct with the approval of the
board to regulate, monitor and report trading of securities by its designated
persons and immediate relatives of designated persons. It is submitted that
Regulation 9(4)(iii) of the PIT Regulations provides that all promoters of
listed companies are covered under the scope of the term ‗designated
persons‘ and are bound by the code of conduct formulated for that company.
It is submitted that the purpose of formulating such policy is to achieve
compliance with, and adopt the minimum standards set out in, the PIT
Regulations, without diluting the provisions of these regulations in any
manner. FHL has formulated a code of conduct for prevention of insider
trading of FHL shares, i.e., the FHL Policy in accordance with Regulation 8
of the PIT Regulations, which has been effective since 15 May 2015, and
was last reviewed on 10 November 2023. The PIT Regulations further
require that the listed company formulating a code of conduct must identify
and designate a compliance officer to administer the code of conduct and
other requirements under these regulations. It is stated that FHL has
appointed the Company Secretary of FHL as the Compliance Officer.
54. He states that in the present case, notably, as per Clause 6 of Schedule
B of the PIT Regulations read with paragraph 3.2.5 of the FHL Policy, any
transfer or trading of securities by designated persons, including promoters,
requires prior approval from the company. In other words, Judgment
Debtors could not have sold/transferred/pledged/alienated FHL shares
owned by them, without obtaining express pre-clearance from FHL, the
company in which they held shares. It is submitted that the policy laid down
by FHL has not been followed and FHL.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 54 of 213

55. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Code of Conduct
framed by FHL under the PIT Regulations establishes a structured
mechanism for monitoring trades undertaken by designated persons. It was
submitted that the Company Secretary, or such other person as may be
designated by the Board of Directors, functions as the Compliance Officer
and is entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the implementation of
the Code, granting pre-clearance for trades, maintaining records of such
approvals and reporting compliance to the Board of Directors on a quarterly
basis. According to the learned Senior Counsel, where the aggregate value
of the proposed trades by a designated employee exceeded Rs. 10,00,000 in
a calendar quarter, the designated employee was required to obtain prior
approval from the Compliance Officer before executing the transaction.
Upon receipt of an application for pre-clearance, the Compliance Officer
was required to examine the request and communicate approval or rejection
within one trading day. If approval was granted, the designated employee
was required to execute the trade within seven trading days, failing which a
fresh pre-clearance was necessary. It was further submitted that, irrespective
of whether the approved trade was executed or not, the designated employee
was obligated to furnish the prescribed disclosures regarding execution, non-
execution and the extent of holdings in the securities of FHL within seven
trading days in the prescribed format. Thus, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, the Code of Conduct contemplated a comprehensive compliance
framework requiring prior scrutiny of trades, post-trade reporting and
continuous oversight by the Compliance Officer, who was, in turn,
accountable to the Board of Directors.
56. He states that the afore-mentioned sequence of steps demonstrates
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 55 of 213

that the only way in which the Judgment Debtors could have been able to
dissipate the 5.29 crore unencumbered shares was with the abetment,
complicity and collusion of FHL. The Decree Holder after reviewing each
public disclosure has prepared a table, giving a set of about 139 transactions
wherein pledges have been created by FHHPL post the assurances given to
the Court. This demonstrates that shares which were unencumbered on the
date when the assurances were given, were later on encumbered by FHHPL,
which is the alter ego of JD No.1 and 6, and these unencumbered shares
have been transacted without following the policy as prepared by FHL in
consonance with the regulatory regime made by SEBI. He states that these
transactions could not have been permitted by the compliance officer in
view of the undertakings of JD No.1 and 6. On one hand the Judgment
Debtors were giving assurances to this Court and whereas on the other hand
they were transacting shares in violation of the undertakings.
57. Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder further submitted that
the sale, pledge, invocation of pledge and other dealings in the promoter
shareholding of FHL are not matters of speculation but are borne out from
statutory disclosures mandated under the SEBI regulatory framework and
the depository mechanism. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these
disclosures emanate from four independent statutory and regulatory sources,
each of which captures different facets of the transactions undertaken by the
Judgment Debtors through FHHPL.
58. First, reliance was placed on Regulation 29(2) of the SAST
Regulations, which mandates every promoter or member of the promoter
group to disclose any change in its shareholding amounting to two per cent
or more of the total shareholding or voting rights. It was submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 56 of 213

every creation of pledge, invocation of pledge, creation of top-up security or
sale of shares crossing the prescribed threshold was disclosed by FHHPL to
FHL and the stock exchanges in accordance with the said Regulations.
These disclosures, commonly referred to as the SAST Disclosures, were
thereafter published by FHL on BSE and NSE. Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the Decree Holder has collated all such disclosures
evidencing the progressive reduction in the promoter shareholding.
59. Second, reliance was placed on Regulation 7(2)(b) of the PIT
Regulations, which obligates a listed company to disclose to the stock
exchanges every transaction undertaken by its promoters where the value of
such transaction exceeds ₹10 lakhs. It was submitted that, in compliance
with the PIT Regulations, FHL itself issued disclosures to the stock
exchanges recording transactions undertaken by the promoter entities,
including the creation and invocation of pledges as well as the sale of shares.
These disclosures, referred to as the PIT Disclosures, were published by
FHL under its scrip on the BSE and NSE. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that, since the monetary threshold under the PIT Regulations is considerably
lower than the threshold prescribed under the SAST Regulations, the PIT
Disclosures capture a substantially larger number of transactions than the
SAST Disclosures.
60. Third, reliance was placed on Regulation 31(1)(b) of the SEBI
(Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015
(‗ LODR Regulations ‘), which requires every listed company to disclose its
shareholding pattern on a quarterly basis. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, these disclosures, regularly published by FHL, reflect the changing
promoter shareholding, constitute the very disclosures referred to by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 57 of 213

Apex Court in paragraph 27 of its judgment in Vinay Prakash Singh ( supra ).
61. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, independent of the
aforesaid statutory disclosures, the depository framework itself provides a
continuous source of information regarding changes in beneficial ownership.
Reliance was placed on Clause 12.4.4 of the NSDL Business Rules and
Clause 6.22 of the CDSL Operating Instructions, under which the National
Securities Depository Limited (‗ NSDL ‘) and the Central Depository
Services (India) Limited (‗ CDSL ‘) furnish Beneficial Position (BENPOS)
statements to listed companies. It was submitted that these BENPOS
statements periodically inform the issuer company of changes in the
holdings of its shareholders, thereby enabling reconciliation of the Register
of Members with the records maintained by the depositories. According to
the learned Senior Counsel, these records constitute an additional and
independent source for tracing the movement of the promoter shareholding
during the relevant period.
62. The Learned Senior Counsel states that in order to ascertain the
conduct of JD No. 1 and 6, the Decree Holder has analysed the SAST
disclosures; the PIT disclosures and correlated the same to paragraph 27 of
the 2019 Apex Court Judgment in Vinay Prakash Singh ( supra ).
63. He states that the JD No. 1 and 6 had a total of 32,50,91,529 shares in
FHL through FHHPL in September 2016. This entire 32.5 crore
shareholding has vanished. These shares can be further divided into
encumbered shares and unencumbered shares. The encumbered shares were
sold by the Financial Institutions and the unencumbered shares were sold by
JD No. 1 and 6. He states that out of 32.5 Crore total shares of FHL held by
FHHPL; the banks have sold around 18 crore by invoking pledges and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 58 of 213

JD No. 1 and 6 have sold around 14 crore shares.
64. He states that there are different and specific disclosures for the
creation of a pledge of shares, for sale by the Bank, and for sale by the JDs
through FHHPL which can be reviewed and ascertained after document
perusal to identity the exact nature of transaction.
65. He states that JD No. 1 and 6 sold some 14 crore unencumbered
shares. Of those 14 crore unencumbered shares sold, some 3.25 crore
unencumbered shares correspond to the Apex Court identified number of
missing unencumbered 3.26 crore shares. The following table was provided
by the Decree Holder in their written note tendered to this Court:
Table A: References to the 11 Transactions mentioned in DH: A1

S. No. Date of
Transaction
Nature of
Transaction
Number of
Shares
Disposed
Disclosure
under PIT
Regulations
Disclosure
under SAST
Regulations

1.

03.07.2017 Disposal 11,92,563 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
06.07.2017
@Pg. 87
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

2

07.07.2017 Disposal 4,00,000
DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
12.07.2017
@Pg. 87
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

3

12.07.2017 Disposal 1,93,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
17.07.2017
@Pg. 85
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

4

14.07.2017 Disposal 10,00,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
20.07.2017
@Pg. 85
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 59 of 213

5

18.07.2017 Disposal 54,00,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
14.08.2017
@Pg. 83

Disclosure
not
available
even though
the
threshold
was
triggered

6

18.07.2017 Disposal 1,31,50,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
21.07.2017
@Pg. 84
DH: A4,
Disclosure
dated
20.07.2017
@Pg. 126-
129
NOTE: The
disclosure
states that the
number of
shares
transferred is
1,35,09,330 .

7

25.07.2017 Disposal 17,25,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
27.07.2017
@Pg. 84
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

8

26.07.2017 Disposal 18,08,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
31.07.2017
@Pg. 83
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

9

27.07.2017 Disposal 20,00,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
31.07.2017
@Pg. 84
Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.

10

08.08.2017 Disposal 1,95,000 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
11.08.2017
@Pg. 83

Disclosure
not
available as
threshold
not
triggered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 60 of 213

11 10.08.2017 Disposal 54,62,411 DH: A4,
Disclosure
reported to
exchange on
14.08.2017
@Pg. 83
DH: A4,
Disclosure
dated
14.08.2017
@Pg. 130-
133
TOTAL 3,25,25,774 [representing 99% of the SC
identified number of 3,26,24,180 missing
unencumbered shares]

66. He states that as per the PIT disclosures JD No. 1 and 6 have sold a
total of 13.99 Crore unencumbered shares since the first assurance. As per
the SAST disclosures JD No. 1 and 6 have sold a total of 6.92 Crore
unencumbered shares since the first assurance. He states that this 6.92 Crore
shares is a part of/ included within the 13.99 crore unencumbered shares.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder then asserts that JD No.
1 and 6 have brazenly violated all assurances tendered to this Court and sold
their unencumbered shares in FHL held through FHHPL with connivance of
FHL being the directors of FHL.
67. The Learned Senior Counsel states that a forensic audit would be
necessary to uncover the transactions undertaken by the JDs in connivance
with FHL. It is also stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the Decree
Holder that these audits would be necessary to enable the executing court to
make good the amounts from FHL.
68. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder draws the
attention of this Court to various judicial pronouncements to contend that a
third party who might not be bound by an order of injunction, cannot aid and
abet thwarting of an injunction and such a conduct will be considered as
interference in the administration of justice. He places reliance on Seaward v
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 61 of 213

Paterson (1895-99) All ER 1127 ; Sita Ram vs. Balbir 2017 (2) SCC 456 ;
Central Depository Services (India) Private Limited v. Rajendra Yeshwant
Shah and Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2872 .
69. He states that while an injunction is inherently a remedy in personam ,
the Court possesses a historically well-settled contempt jurisdiction against
third parties who, despite not being original parties, possess knowledge of
the injunction and wilfully aid and abet its violation.
70. He states that FHL was aware of the orders of this Court as the
Judgment Debtors were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of FHL holding
controlling stake in the company. Despite holding knowledge of the
assurances and the status quo orders, FHL aided and abetted the JDs in
dissipating their shareholding.
71. He states that it is now a settled proposition of law that an undertaking
given by a party is equivalent to an order of injunction. Learned Senior
Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Noorali Babul
Thanewala vs. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 wherein the Apex
Court held that a breach of an undertaking by a party is tantamount to a
breach of injunction. He states that this position has been reiterated in
Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1139 .
72. He states that it is further a well settled principle of law that an order
of injunction in an application for execution is equivalent to an order of
attachment as has been held by the High Court of Calcutta in Madvai
Ahluwalia vs. Vimal Kumar Gupta and Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2193 ,
wherein the Court observed that ―therefore, an order of injunction in an
execution application is an order of attachment.‖
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 62 of 213

73. He states that Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(‗ CPC ‘) mandates that any private alienation of such an attached property is
void with the exception for a private transfer which was made pursuant to a
contract entered into and registered prior to the attachment.
74. He states that the shares of FHL held by JD No. 1 and 6 through
FHHPL were the subject matter of undertakings given to this Court. That
being the case, the shares stood injuncted for the benefit of the Decree
Holder. An injunction in an execution proceeding is equivalent to an
attachment and in this case, the undertaking/injunction was in execution
proceedings. Therefore, pursuant to the six undertakings, the shares were not
only injuncted but also attached in favour of the Decree Holder. He thus
states that Section 64 of the CPC would come into effect and any private
alienation would be void unless the said alienation was protected by Section
64(2) of the CPC.
75. In the present case, the sequestered shares are today held by many
retail investors who have purchased shares from the stock exchange
following the contemptuous acts of the Judgment Debtors who were in turn
aided and abetted by FHL. The forensic audit could, therefore, establish the
role played by FHL in aiding and assisting the Judgment Debtors to
consciously violate the undertakings offered to this Court, based on which
the Court can then issue consequential directions such as disgorgement, in
terms of the observations made by the Apex Court in Daiichi Sankyo Co.
Ltd. v . Oscar Investments Ltd. (2023) 7 SCC 641.
76. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder states that the
CPC, is a handmaid to substantive justice. The High Court of Allahabad,
through Justice Mahmood, in Narsingh Das vs. Mangal Dubey reported as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 63 of 213

ILR (1883) 5 All 163 observed that:
― Courts are not to act upon the principle that every
procedure to be as prohibited unless it is expressly
provided for by the Code but on the converse principle
that every procedure is to be understood as permissible
till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter
of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed ‖.

77. He states that the said principle has been reiterated by the Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena vs. Bhim Sen, AIR 1966
All 84 and by the Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs. Prakash
Chandra Mishra, (2011) 2 SCC . He states that the CPC is an ongoing statute
which should be interpreted purposively to give effect to the original
legislative intention.
78. He argues that the Apex Court has consistently reiterated that the
purpose of execution proceedings is to enable the Decree Holder to obtain
the fruits of his decree and even if there is any ambiguity, any interpretation
which assists the Decree Holder should be accepted. Reference is drawn to
Deep Chand vs. Mohan Lal, (2000) 6 SCC 259 .
79. The Learned Senior Counsel states that considering these fundamental
principles, the Decree Holder submits that this Court possesses the power
and jurisdiction under the CPC to ensure restitution to the Decree Holder
from FHL. The power of this Court to order such restitution from FHL can
be traced to Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Section 51(e), and Section 144 read
with Section 151 of the CPC. Alternatively, it is submitted that in these
unique facts and circumstances this Court can array FHL as a Judgment
Debtor to the present execution proceedings in terms of Section 145 of the
CPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 64 of 213

80. He states this Court, exercising powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2A
read with Section 151 of the CPC, possesses the inherent jurisdiction to
preserve its majesty and mandate the restoration of the status quo ante , a
legal position affirmed in Century Flour Mills vs. S. Suppiah AIR 1975
Mad 270 , Sujit Pal vs. Prabir Kumar Sen AIR 1986 Cal 220 , Vidya Charan
Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association 1991 SCC OnLine Mad 3 ,
Satyabrata Biswas and Ors vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku (1994) 2 SCC 266 .
81. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder that
while the Court has the power to restore the exact status quo ante , the 5.29
crore unencumbered FHL shares are now held by unsuspecting members of
the general public; therefore, to protect these innocent third parties, the
Court should instead facilitate restitution by directing FHL to remit the
current market value of the said 5.29 crore shares.
82. He states that the inherent equitable power of restitution aims to
achieve complete justice at the end of litigation, wherein Section 144 of the
CPC serves as an illustration rather than a limitation of the Court's authority,
as established in Gangadhar vs. Raghubar Dayal 1974 SCC OnLine AII
148 , Kavita Trehan vs. Balsara Hygeine Products Limited (1994) 5 SCC
380 , and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors . (2003) 8 SCC 648 .
83. He states that applying the threefold test of restitution outlined in
DTC vs. M/s. International Avenues 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1794 , the
present matter falls squarely within the third component requiring
compensation or reparation for loss caused to another. FHL is obligated to
compensate the Decree Holder because it actively conspired with the
Judgment Debtors to dissipate the unencumbered shares in violation of six
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 65 of 213

assurances and court orders, thereby causing substantive loss to the Decree
Holder and offending the majesty of this Court.
84. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder that
Section 51(e) of the CPC vests this Court with an extraordinary residuary
jurisdiction to enforce a decree in any manner deemed fit, ensuring that
judicial orders are effectively executed rather than passed in vain, a power
recognized and utilized in State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab (2004) 12
SCC 673 and Narayan Dutt Tiwari vs. Rohit Shekher (2012) 12 SCC 554 .

85. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder that
this Court ought to exercise its residuary and inherent powers to direct FHL
to restitute the present market value of the 5.29 crore dissipated shares,
which is the only equitable mechanism to uphold the Court's majesty and
satisfy a substantial portion of the decretal sum.
86. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Decree Holder that,
in the alternative, FHL ought to be impleaded as a Judgment Debtor
pursuant to Section 145 of the CPC, which permits a third party who has
furnished a guarantee or acted as a surety to be added to a decree.
87. He states that JD No. 1 and JD No. 6, functioning as directors,
promoters, and controlling shareholders of FHL until February 2018,
repeatedly tendered assurances to the Court based on their managerial
control and underlying shareholding value in FHL, even citing potential
market impacts on FHL's clients.
SUBMISSIONS OF MR. RAJIV NAYAR, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF FHL
88. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned
Senior Counsel for FHL, stating that the Decree Holder has taken a volte
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 66 of 213

face . Inasmuch as in the entire execution proceedings and in the proceedings
before the Apex Court, there has been no allegation against FHL, the entire
case of the Decree Holder was that Judgment Debtor No. 1 and 6 had sold
shares of FHL through FHHPL. Alternatively, the banks, in furtherance of
the arrangements entered into between them and the Judgment Debtors had
sold the unencumbered shares as a top-up. Meaning thereby, since the value
of the shares pledged had gone below the value mentioned in the
arrangements, the Judgment Debtors had to pledge in further shares to cover
up the margins. These shares had been sold by the banks, for which FHL is
not responsible. It is stated that this volte face cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the absence of an affidavit by a competent person on behalf of
the Decree Holder and this argument cannot be permitted to be raised only
on the basis of certain notes.
89. It is submitted that in the absence of any allegation of any kind in the
affidavits filed by the Decree Holder, allegations against FHL cannot be
permitted to be levelled only by filing some application. It is further
contended that neither FHL nor FHHPL was a Judgment Debtor. He states
that the shares owned by FHHPL were never attached. He further states that
they could not have been the part of any undertakings, as the Judgment
Debtors could not have given any undertaking on behalf of the FHHPL
which was a separate legal entity. He further asserts that undertakings were
given by the Counsels for the Judgment Debtors without there being any
specific inclusion of the shares of FHHPL in FHL. The assurances were only
in relation to the personal assets of the Judgment Debtors and not of FHHPL
which is not a Judgment Debtor.
90. He states that the issue of unencumbered or encumbered shares is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 67 of 213

between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtors. He states that all the
court assurances were personal undertakings by the Judgment Debtors
regarding their own assets inter alia their shares in FHL. Neither FHL nor
FHHPL gave any assurance or undertaking to this Court and was not bound
by any restraint orders.
91. He states that on account of the fact that all parties understood that
FHL had no role in the matter relating to dissipation of shareholding, FHL
was not made a party to any legal proceedings at the time when the
assurances were given or when the purported injunction orders were passed.
The Decree Holder never impleaded FHL in the execution proceedings; on
the contrary, FHL impleaded itself on April 5, 2018, and only in respect of
specific applications, at the instance of the Decree Holder attempting to seek
orders against FHL without making FHL a party to the proceedings.
92. The Learned Senior Counsel states that there was no operative
injunction over FHHPL shares of FHL before the status quo order of the
Apex Court of 11.08.2017. On 11.08.2017, the Apex Court first directed
status quo over FHHPL‘s shares in FHL and this order was subsequently
clarified and explained. On 31.08.2017, the Court clarified that the order
covered both encumbered and unencumbered shares. A further clarification
issued on 15.02.2018 which allowed banks to sell the shares encumbered
prior to 11.08.2017. In fact, the prevailing view at the time, as admitted by
the Decree Holder itself and the banks, was that no injunction existed on
FHHPL's shares in FHL prior to 11.08.2017.
93. The Learned Senior Counsel states that the Decree Holder itself filed
an SLP (C) No. 20417 of 2017 before the Apex Court seeking an injunction
in relation to FHHPL shares in FHL having been aggrieved by the Order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 68 of 213

High Court not granting an injunction. It is only thereafter that the first
injunction order of 11.08.2017 came to be passed. Since the Decree Holder
was not granted orders for specific share attachment under CPC Order 21,
Rule 46, therefore, the shares remained freely transferable till such date.
94. He states that by 11.08.2017, promoter holdings had already fallen
materially. Public shareholding stood at about 64%. The majority of the
unencumbered shares as pointed out by the Decree Holder had already been
sold by then. He states that FHL had no involvement in those sales.

95. The Learned Senior Counsel states that FHL was not involved in any
manner in the movement of these shares. It is the case of FHL that it is a
listed company. Accordingly, the factum of FHL being majorly owned by
JD No. 1 and 6 through FHHPL at that time was irrelevant given that under
applicable law, a listed company has no role in share transfers as the shares
of any listed company are freely transferable.
96. It is stated by the Learned Senior Counsel that the Apex Court in
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited ( supra ) restricted the enquiry in relation
to the dissipation of FHHPL‘s shares only to the banks and financial
institutions. FHL was, rightly so, nowhere sought to be covered in relation to
the dissipation of FHL shares held by FHHPL.
97. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits filed by JD
No. 14 and JD No. 19 to substantiate the contentions that there is no specific
reference given to the shares of FHL held by FHHPL or that any
undertakings given by FHHPL or FHL, which were not the parties to the
case when the assurances were given and therefore the volte face at this
stage blaming FHL for dissipation of shares, that too, sans an affidavit, is
unacceptable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 69 of 213

98. He states that FHL is a listed company with numerous shareholders
and is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders and its promoters.
At all relevant times, FHL was an independent entity, distinct from FHHPL.
Consequently, FHL's assets belongs to FHL itself, not to its shareholders
like FHHPL. Similarly, FHL had no right or control over FHHPL‘s assets,
that is, the shares held by FHHPL in FHL. He states that the well-settled
legal principle of separate corporate existence cannot be ignored. Learned
Senior Counsel contends that the Decree Holder has misled this Court by
basing its arguments on a fundamentally wrong legal interpretation and as a
public listed company, FHL could not have restrained the transfer of
FHHPL‘s shares because dematerialized shares are freely transferable. The
Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court
in Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited,
(2010) 7 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
―58. Firstly, the MoU is not technically binding between RIL
and RNRL. It is not in dispute that MoU is between three
persons and the personality of the Company must be construed
separate from these persons. The principle emphasised by Mr
Jethmalani i.e. doctrine of identification may be applicable only
in respect of small undertakings but in the case of RIL and
RNRL, the companies have more than three million
shareholders, in such a situation, one cannot make the
companies‘ personality the same as that of the persons
involved.

[…]
Doctrine of identification
310. Shri Jethmalani went to some lengths in arguing that the
doctrine of identification has immediate and crucial relevance
in this case. As explained by him, there are certain individuals,
who are the controlling mind of the Company and that once
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 70 of 213

they have agreed to something, it should be deemed that the
Company also agreed to the same, including the Board.
Reliance was placed upon the decisions referred to in the
summary of submissions.
[…]
311. We disagree. The doctrine of identification as developed
by the courts is typically applicable in criminal and tortious
liability cases. […]‖

99. The Learned Senior Counsel furthers places reliance on the Apex
Court judgment in Bacha F. Guzdar v CIT, AIR 1955 SC 74 , where it was
held that a shareholder‘s interest in a company is limited to their
shareholding and does not extend to the assets of the company. The relevant
portion is reproduced as follows:

―9. […] That a shareholder acquires a right to
participate in the profits of the company may be
readily conceded but it is not possible to accept the
contention that the shareholder acquires any interest in
the assets of the company. The use of the word ‘assets‘
in the passage quoted above cannot be exploited to
warrant the inference that a shareholder, on investing
money in the purchase of shares, becomes entitled to
the assets of the company and has any share in the
property of the company. A shareholder has got no
interest in the property of the company though he has
undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and
when the company decides to divide them.

10. The interest of a shareholder vis-à-vis the company
was explained in the case of Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v.
The Union of India and Others. That judgment
negatives the position taken up on behalf of the
appellant that a shareholder has got a right in the
property of the company. It is true that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 71 of 213

shareholders of the company have the, sole
determining voice in administering the affairs of the
company and are entitled, as provided by the Articles
of Association to declare that dividends should be
distributed out of the profits of the company to the
shareholders but the interest of the shareholder either
individually or collectively does not amount to more
than a right to participate in the profits of the
company. The company is a juristic person and is
distinct from the shareholders. It is the company which
owns the property and not the shareholders. The
dividend is a share of the profits declared by the
company as liable to be distributed among the
shareholders.

11. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant on a
passage in Buckley‘s Companies Act, 12th Ed., page
894, where the etymological meaning of dividend is
given as dividendum, the total divisible sum but in its
ordinary sense it means the sum paid and received as
the quotient forming the share of the divisible sum
payable to the recipient. This statement does not justify
the contention that shareholders are owners of a
divisible sum or that they are owners of the property of
the company. […] There is nothing in the Indian law to
warrant the assumption that a shareholder who buys
shares buys any interest in the property of the company
which is a juristic person entirely distinct from the
shareholders.‖

100. The Learned Senior Counsel for FHL argues that FHL and FHHPL
are separate legal entities, and so, FHL cannot be bound by assurances from
JD No. 1 and 6, and cannot be treated as the same entity as the said JDs to
scapegoat FHL by dragging it into this matter. Stating that FHL is the
Judgment Debtors would threaten decades of settled jurisprudence
protecting separate corporate personality, shareholders, and creditors.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 72 of 213

Further, on 31.01.2018 and 27.02.2018, FHL had also made disclosures to
the Stock Exchange to the effect that FHL was not involved in or impacted
by the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the Decree Holder against JD
No. 1 and 6. He further states that the proceedings did not have any direct
impact on FHL or its operations. He adds that the Decree Holder was aware
of these disclosures and took no steps to dispute them.
101. The Learned Senior Counsel for FHL states that FHL is a public
company. Under Section 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the securities of
a public company are explicitly declared to be freely transferable, depriving
FHL of any power to restrict the transfer of shares owned by FHHPL.
102. It is stated that under the Depositories Act, 1996 (specifically Sections
7(1), 9, 10(1), and 11), share transfers occur electronically via book-entry.
The depository serves as the registered owner for effecting transfers, while
the actual owner (FHHPL) acts as the beneficial owner. He states that the
listed company merely receives post-facto intimation of completed transfers
and inherently lacks the power to refuse registration.
103. It is stated that per the NSDL Business Rules (Rules 12.2 and 12.3),
both market and off-market transfers are executed exclusively at the
depository level. The Depository Participant (‗ DP ‘) processes these transfers
based solely on the authorization and instructions of the beneficial owner.
Hence, as a listed company, FHL was neither required nor able to be
involved in the transfer process executed between the beneficial owner, the
DP, and the Depository.
104. The Learned Senior Counsel states that SEBI and the depositories
govern the centralized mechanism for freezing demat accounts. According
to the SEBI Master Circulars on Depositories dated December 15, 2016, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 73 of 213

updated on December 3, 2024, only the DP or the Depository has the
statutory right to freeze or unfreeze accounts upon receiving instructions
from a court, regulator, or statutory authority. It is stated that under this
statutory framework, the listed issuer company plays absolutely no role.
Consequently, FHL possessed no legal authority or operational mechanism
to freeze FHHPL‘s demat account or halt the transfer of its shares.


105. The Learned Senior Counsel for FHL argues that the SEBI framework
described above does not mention the listed company whose shares are in
question. Furthermore, it imposes no obligation on the listed company to
take any action in this regard. It is therefore clear that FHL had neither the
power nor the legal ability to restrain FHHPL from trading in its demat
securities. Aware of the judgment debtors' assurances, the Decree Holder
should have obtained appropriate injunctive orders and communicated the
same to the Depositories or the DP to freeze the relevant accounts using the
mechanism available at that time. Instead of following the applicable legal
framework, and ignoring its own failure to do so, the Decree Holder now
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 74 of 213

attempts to hold FHL liable.
106. The Learned Senior Counsel states that the disclosures cited by
Decree Holder were made by FHHPL post-transfer, to comply with its
obligations under the SAST Regulations, and FHL was only copied on them.
He states that contrary to Decree Holder‘s baseless assertions, stock
exchange bye-laws do not mandate that only a listed entity can file
disclosures, and such disclosures were in fact filed by FHHPL, and not FHL.
107. It is the contention of the FHL that the law before April 2019 did not
require promoter entities to obtain preclearance for trades as pleaded by the
Decree Holder. He states that during the relevant period (2016–2018),
Regulation 9 of the PIT Regulations required all listed entities to formulate a
Code of Conduct. Paragraph 3 of Schedule B specified that this Code of
Conduct applied to employees and connected persons designated by the
company based on their role and function. Regulation 9 stated as follows:

―Code of Conduct.

9. (1) The board of directors of every listed company
and market intermediary shall formulate a code of
conduct to regulate, monitor and report trading by its
employees and other connected persons towards
achieving compliance with these regulations, adopting
the minimum standards set out in Schedule B to these
regulations, without diluting the provisions of these
regulations in any manner.‖

108. Further, Paragraph 3 of Schedule B of the Insider Trading Regulations
provides:
―3. Employees and connected persons designated on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 75 of 213

the basis of their functional role (―designated
persons‖) in the organisation shall be governed by
an internal code of conduct governing dealing in
securities. The board of directors shall in
consultation with the compliance officer specify the
designated persons to be covered by such code on
the basis of their role and function in the
organisation. Due regard shall be had to the access
that such role and function would provide to
unpublished price sensitive information in addition
to seniority and professional designation.‖


109. The submission of FHL is that the requirement to seek pre-clearance
for trades was applicable only to such employees and connected persons as
designated by the listed company based on their functional role. FHL‘s Code
of Conduct, as applicable then, only required directors, senior management
and specified employees to seek pre-clearance for trades, and not its
promoter entities. The definition of ‗designated employees‘ as applicable at
the relevant point in time is reproduced below:
―(e) ―Designated Employees‖ in relation to
Company shall include –

i. Managing Director and Whole-time Director(s)
(by whatever name called for the time being)

ii. Other Directors Chief Executive Officer,

iii. Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary

iv. All direct reports of persons mentioned at (i), (ii)
& (iii)

v. All Function / Department Heads
vi. . Such other persons as the Compliance Officer
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 76 of 213

may notify from time to time basis seniority and
professional designation and role and criticality of
function that may entail such person to have
availability of UPSI.‖

110. The Learned Senior Counsel argues that at the relevant point, FHHPL
was only a promoter entity, and thereby, was not required to obtain pre-
clearance from the Compliance Officer for trades. It is submitted that that
the law was amended only in April 2019 to specifically include ‗promoter
entities‘ within the scope of designated persons who mandatorily require
pre-clearance of trades from compliance officer. He emphasises to note that
the trades in question are from 2017- 2018 which is well before the law was
amended. It is submitted that the amendment to the scope of ‗designated
persons‘ under the PIT Regulations was explained through the below
mentioned excerpts from the ‗Report of Committee on Fair Market Conduct‘
dated August 08, 2018, issued by SEBI:

―3.2. Applicability of code of conduct

As stated above, Regulation 9 of the PIT Regulations deals with
the code of conduct for regulating and monitoring trades by
employees and other connected persons. The regulations
implies that the code of conduct is to be followed by all
employees. However, the Code of Conduct itself which is
contained in Schedule B (Clause 3) of the PIT Regulations
states that only employees and connected persons designated on
the basis of their functional role in the organisation shall be
governed by the Code of Conduct. This can result in confusion
as to the coverage of the Code of Conduct. Further, a listed
company or market intermediary cannot enforce the code on
persons other than employees and their relatives. Including all
connected persons under coverage of the code may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 77 of 213

impractical, considering the wide definition of connected
persons.

Recommendation

The Committee recommends that the code of conduct may be
made applicable to ―designated person(s)‖ and immediate
relatives of the ―designated person(s)‖ only. The term
―designated person(s)‖ should be defined by means of an
explanation to regulation 9(2).

―Designated person(s)‖ for listed company should at least
include Promoter, CEO and upto two levels below CEO of such
listed company and its material subsidiaries irrespective of
their functional role in the company or ability to have access to
UPSI.[…]‖

111. Attention of this Court is drawn to Regulation 9(4)(iii) of the
amended Insider Trading Regulations states that as follows:
―Code of Conduct.

9. (1) The board of directors of every listed company
and [the board of directors or head(s) of the
organisation of every intermediary shall ensure that
the chief executive officer or managing director] shall
formulate a code of conduct [with their approval] to
regulate, monitor and report trading by its [designated
persons and immediate relatives of designated
persons] towards achieving compliance with these
regulations, adopting the minimum standards set out in
Schedule B [(in case of a listed company) and Schedule
C (in case of an intermediary)] to these regulations,
without diluting the provisions of these regulations in
any manner.

[…]

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 78 of 213

[(4) For the purpose of sub regulation (1) and (2), the
board of directors or such other analogous authority
shall in consultation with the compliance officer
specify the designated persons to be covered by the
code of conduct on the basis of their role and function
in the organisation and the access that such role and
function would provide to unpublished price sensitive
information in addition to seniority and professional
designation and shall include:-
[…]
(iii) All promoters of listed companies and promoters
who are individuals or investment companies for
intermediaries or fiduciaries[…]‖

112. He states that FHL‘s Code of Conduct was revised only after the PIT
Regulations were amended. This revision brought promoter entities under
the definition of ‗designated persons‘ who required pre-clearance for trades
from the Compliance Officer. The definition of ‗designated persons‘ under
the FHL Code of Conduct (revised in 2019) was as follows:

―(d) ―Designated Persons‖ shall include –

i. Directors of the Company;

ii. Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Company Secretary of the Company;

iii. CEC Members (i.e. direct reports to CEO) of the
Company and/or its subsidiaries;

iv. One level below CEC Members of the Company
and/or its subsidiaries; and

v. Promoters of the Company;

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 79 of 213

vi. All employees of the Company and/or its
subsidiaries based at Support Office of Corporate
Secretarial, Finance, Investor Relations, Internal
Audit, CEO Office and Legal functions; vii. Such other
persons as the Compliance Officer may notify from
time to time basis seniority and professional
designation or basis role and criticality of function that
may entail such person to have availability of UPSI.‖

113. He asserts that FHHPL was not a ‗designated person‘ under the law
and the FHL Code of Conduct during the relevant period (2017-2018).
Therefore, the transaction of FHHPL did not require approval from FHL‘s
Compliance Officer.
114. He states that the Decree Holder‘s reliance on the definition of
‗connected person‘ is misplaced. Even if FHHPL was a connected person
(since connected person includes a holding company or associate company
or subsidiary company), Paragraph 6, Schedule B of the PIT Regulations
only requires ‗designated persons‘ to obtain pre-clearance for trades.
115. He states that the Decree Holder‘s reliance on FHHPL being an
‗insider‘, and consequently being subject to a mandatory pre-clearance, is
misplaced. He states that the Decree Holder incorrectly assumed that once
an entity is classified as an ‗insider‘ under the PIT Regulations, all
obligations, including pre-clearance, apply conflating two distinct concepts.
Under Regulation 2(1)(g) of the PIT Regulations, ―insider‖ is a broad
category that includes connected persons and those in possession of
Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (―UPSI‖). However, the
requirement to seek pre-clearance applies only to designated persons, a
narrower and specifically identified sub-set under the Regulations.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 80 of 213

Therefore, even if FHHPL was an insider by virtue of being a connected
person, this did not, by itself, impose a statutory pre-clearance obligation
which was only applicable on the promoters at the relevant time.
116. He states that without prejudice that even if FHHPL had sought pre-
clearance, the Compliance Officer‘s role under the law did not extend to
assessing the legality of FHHPL‘s transactions.
117. He states under the PIT Regulations, pre-clearance is intended only to
ensure designated persons do not trade while possessing UPSI.
Consequently, the remit of the compliance officer under the PIT Regulations
is to review whether a person possesses UPSI or not. UPSI means any
information relating to a company or its securities, directly or indirectly, that
is not generally available which upon becoming generally available, is likely
to materially affect the price of the securities. The assurances which were
captured in court orders were in the public domain and do not amount to
UPSI. This is clear from Schedule B of the Insider Trading Regulations
which is reproduced as follows:

―6. When the trading window is open, trading by
designated persons shall be subject to pre clearance by
the compliance officer, if the value of the proposed
trades is above such thresholds as the board of
directors may stipulate. No designated person shall
apply for pre-clearance of any proposed trade if such
designated person is in possession of unpublished price
sensitive information even if the trading window is not
closed.
[…]

8. Prior to approving any trades, the compliance
officer shall be entitled to seek declarations to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 81 of 213

effect that the applicant for pre-clearance is not in
possession of any unpublished price sensitive
information. He shall also have regard to whether any
such declaration is reasonably capable of being
rendered inaccurate.‖

118. The Learned Senior Counsel contends that it is a settled legal position
that any alleged lapses by the Compliance Officer under the PIT Regulations
are not automatically construed as lapses by the listed entity. He further
states that any alleged violations of securities laws by FHL or its
Compliance Officer are within the exclusive jurisdiction of SEBI, and any
penalties in relation thereto can only be imposed by SEBI in accordance
with the applicable securities law.
119. He states that the Compliance officer cannot be held liable in case the
relevant designated employee does not seek a pre-clearance, and the
Company cannot be held liable for lapses on the part of the compliance
officer.
120. The Learned Senior Counsel states that the allegations made by the
Decree Holder regarding violations of SAST Regulations is unsustainable.
The disclosures were made post-facto, meaning FHL had no prior
knowledge of the trades. In any event, FHL‘s knowledge is irrelevant since
it could not have prevented the transfers which were executed through the
depository.

121. Reliance is placed on Regulation 29 of the SAST Regulations which
provides as follows:
―Disclosure of acquisition and disposal.
29.(1) Any acquirer, together with persons acting in
concert with him acquiring shares or voting rights in a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 82 of 213

target company, which taken together aggregates to
five per cent or more of the shares of such target
company, shall disclose their aggregate shareholding
and voting rights in such target company in such form
as may be specified:‖

(2) Any person together with persons acting in concert
with him, holds shares or voting rights entitling them
to five per cent or more of the shares or voting rights
in a target company, shall disclose the number of
shares or voting rights held and change in
shareholding or voting rights, even if such change
results in shareholding falling below five per cent, if
there has been change in such holdings from the last
disclosure made under sub-regulation (1) or under this
sub-regulation; and such change exceeds two per cent
of total shareholding or voting rights in the target
company, in such form as may be specified.

Provided that in case of listed entity which has listed
its specified securities on Innovators Growth Platform,
any reference to ―five per cent‖ shall be read as ―ten
per cent‖ and any reference to ―two per cent‖ shall be
read as ―five per cent‖.

(3) The disclosures required under sub-regulation (1)
and sub-regulation (2) shall be made within two
working days of the receipt of intimation of allotment
of shares, or the acquisition [or the disposal] of shares
or voting rights in the target company to,—

(a) every stock exchange where the shares of the target
company are listed; and
(b) the target company at its registered office.
[…]‖

122. The Learned Senior Counsel for FHL states that it is in compliance
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
SINGH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
16:26:34
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 Page 83 of 213