$~O-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21^st January, 2026 CRL.M.A. 11201/2020 IN + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 170/2019 WALMARK HOLDINGS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: None versus FORTIS HEALTHCARE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. H.S. Chandhoke and Mr. Saleem Hasan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The captioned application has been filed on behalf of the respondent/ Fortis Healthcare Limited (hereinafter ‘Fortis’) under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CrPC’) read with Section 195 of CrPC and Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 209 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) on the ground that the petitioner/ Walmark Holdings Limited (hereinafter ‘Walmark’) and its officials have played serious fraud on this Court in an attempt to obtain favourable orders/

reliefs against Fortis.

2. The main petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Act’) was filed on behalf Walmark against Fortis on the basis of the draft Term Sheet dated 6^th December 2017 (hereinafter ‘Term Sheet’) and the Side Letters dated 6^th December 2017 (hereinafter ‘Side Letters’).

RELEVANT FACTS

3. A non-binding Term Sheet dated 26^th September 2017 (hereinafter ‘NBTS’) was executed between the parties. NBTS was valid for only 30 days and the same was not extended by the parties. Accordingly, NBTS stood lapsed.

4. Between 3^rd December 2017 and 6^th December 2017, the representatives of Fortis and Walmark prepared a draft Term Sheet.

However, the said draft Term Sheet was never executed on behalf of Fortis.

5. Fortis, on 16^th May 2018, received an email from counsel for Walmark containing an attachment of the Term Sheet, which did not bear the signature of Mr. Bhavdeep Singh, the erstwhile CEO of Fortis.

6. In a civil suit bearing no. CS-DJ-171 of 2018 titled Participation Finance & Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. RHC Holding Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. pending before the District Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, Walmark moved an application for impleadment on 4^th July 2018 along with a copy of the Term Sheet, which did not bear the signature of Mr. Bhavdeep Singh.

7. Walmark filed a complaint dated 3^rd October 2018 with SEBI, NSE and BSE against Fortis, wherein the Term Sheet bearing the forged signature of Mr. Bhavdeep Singh was disclosed for the first time. However, in the said complaint, Walmark has admitted that Mr. Bhavdeep Singh was not present on the date when the Term Sheet was executed between the parties.

8. The petition under Section 9 of the Act was subsequently filed on behalf of Walmark seeking interim reliefs against Fortis, wherein reliance has been placed upon the Term Sheet and the Side Letters.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE PETITION

9. Notice in the main petition under Section 9 of the Act was accepted on behalf of Fortis on 29^th May 2019. On the same date, Fortis challenged the execution of the Term Sheet. Accordingly, Fortis was directed to file an affidavit stating its stand in this regard.

10. Walmark filed an application seeking withdrawal of the main petition under Section 9 of the Act and notice in the said application was issued on

22^nd November 2019.

11. On 24^th February 2020, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to Fortis to file an application under Section 340 of CrPC for taking action against the officials of Walmark.

12. The captioned application has been filed under Section 340 of CrPC on behalf of the Fortis.

13. On 20^th August 2020, notice in the captioned application was issued to the non-applicants/ officials of Walmark – (i) Dr. Wandschneider (ii) Mr. Georg Ehrmann (iii) Mr. David Baxi (iv) Mr. Rajesh Singh (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘non-applicants’).

14. On 13^th October 2020, Mr. Priyal Anand, Advocate appeared on behalf of the non-applicants and sought time to file reply.

15. On 24^th February 2021, fresh notice was issued to the non-applicants as it was asserted on behalf of Walmark t