Back
Parent Seeks Freeze On Warrants, Delhi HC Issues Notice
The has issued notice on a fresh petition by , the parent company of fintech major , seeking to freeze any or over the warrants of without its prior written consent. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the respondents to file replies within two weeks and listed the matter for consideration on . Notably, the court did not grant any at this stage.
A Second Front in the Unity Bank Dispute
This petition marks the second legal front opened by in its ongoing dispute with and over . In , the same court had restrained the bank from proceeding with a proposal to increase its authorized share capital to facilitate , holding that the proposal fell within "" under the Shareholders' Agreement dated . Now, the parent company is targeting the warrants themselves—seeking to prevent their or and demanding full disclosure of their current holders and past transactions.
What the Petition Seeks
The
, filed under the
, prays for
restraining JBCG, Centrum, and persons acting on their behalf from
"undertaking, effecting, agreeing to effect, offering, soliciting, marketing, or in any manner giving effect to any
of, and/or from creating, agreeing to create or permitting the creation of any
over, any Warrants of Respondent No.3"
without the petitioner's written consent. It also seeks to restrain
from registering or giving effect to any such
or
, and from implementing a
of its Stakeholders Relationship Committee dated
, which revised the process for securities transfers insofar as it relates to the warrants. Additionally, the petition demands that the respondents furnish, on affidavit, complete particulars of all warrant holders, past transfers, consideration paid, and details of any encumbrances created.
Court's Procedural Order
Alongside issuing notice on the main petition, Justice Gedela disposed of several procedural applications. The petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the and granted three weeks to file a certificate under for electronic evidence. Exemptions and extensions were also allowed for filing clearer copies of dim documents and a lengthy list of dates and synopsis. The court granted the respondents not more than two weeks to file their reply, with a rejoinder due within three days thereafter.
Why This Matters
allows parties to seek before or during arbitration, and it has become a critical tool in shareholder disputes where assets can be moved quickly. 's parent is using this provision to build a legal fence around the warrants from multiple sides: having already blocked the corporate action to convert them, it now seeks to prevent their or and to compel disclosure of their current status. The underlying legal question is the reach of the "" clause in the Shareholders' Agreement, which the court in the July matter took a view must be strictly followed.
With the warrants reportedly lapsing by the , the interim skirmishes carry an urgency that the final arbitration may not be able to match. The court's next hearing on October 1 will determine whether the sought by will be granted, potentially shaping the balance of power in this high-stakes corporate battle.
