Back
Issues Notice on 's Plea to Freeze Warrant Transfers
The on issued notice on a fresh petition filed by , the parent company of fintech firm , seeking to restrain the transfer and of issued by . Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, did not grant any at this stage and listed the matter for consideration on .
A Second Front in the Dispute
The petition under is the latest salvo in an ongoing dispute between and Financial Services over . holds 51% stake in the bank while 's parent holds 49%. The bank was set up in 2021 after a consortium of and took over the collapsed , with contributing approximately ₹746 crore towards depositor repayment.
At the heart of the current petition are allotted to in . alleges that Advisory Services, a affiliate, transferred around 6.74 crore Series 1 and 4 crore Series 2 , and that both and created encumbrances over 15 crore Series 1 and 16.92 crore Series 2 without obtaining 's as required under the dated .
Specific Allegations of Unauthorised Transactions
The petition highlights a particular transaction where allegedly pledged 8 crore Series 2 to , acting as trustee for , raising approximately ₹200 crore. is said to have subsequently transferred 4 crore of those to schemes of .
also points to the price disparity: subscribed to the at Re 0.01 each, later transferred 50 crore to at Re 0.16 each, and "reasonably believes" offered them onward at around ₹26 each.
Relief Sought and Court's Order
has sought an restraining and from transferring, marketing, or creating any over the without its . It also seeks to restrain from registering or giving effect to any such transfer, and from acting on a of its Stakeholders Relationship Committee revising the process for . Additionally, has sought complete disclosure of warrant holders, transfer details, and encumbrances.
The court allowed several procedural applications filed by the petitioner, including permission to file additional documents, extension of time to file a certificate under the , and exemption from filing clearer copies of documents. Notice was issued on the main petition, and the respondents were granted two weeks to file replies, with the petitioner having three days thereafter for .
No Granted
Notably, the court did not pass any on the substantive relief sought. The matter will be heard further on October 1, just weeks before the are reported to lapse by the , lending urgency to the proceedings.
Background of
invoked on , nominating former judge Justice Vineet Saran as its . The present petition follows an earlier Section 9 proceeding in July where the restrained the respondents from proceeding with a proposal to increase 's authorised share capital and amend its memorandum to facilitate , holding that such action fell within "" under the .
What Lies Ahead
The legal question is whether the transfer and of also fall within the protected zone of the . The court's decision on October 1 will determine whether interim protection is granted pending . The outcome will have significant implications for in .
Case Details : , before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, . Order dated , 2026. Next hearing: .
