Bar&Bench News Network
The Delhi High Court has allowed Anil Nanda's application to implead Fortis Healthcare in the dispute with his brother, Rajan Nanda. The Malvinder Singh-promoted healthcare major is now a party to the bitter dispute pending since 2005.
The Anil and Rajan Nanda-owned Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre was sold to Fortis Healthcare for approximately Rs. 556 crore ($ 115 Million) in 2005. Fortis Healthcare entered the capital markets in 2007 and raised Rs. 500 Crores ($104 Million) through an IPO. One of the risk factors included in the Fortis IPO prospectus was the existence of the dispute with Anil Nanda.
Anil Nanda has argued before the Court that the public offer of Fortis Healthcare should be declared illegal on the grounds that the Escorts Heart Institute is under dispute. Nanda's petition seeking a declaration of the 2007 Fortis IPO as illegal has been admitted.
The amended petition also asks the Court to declare the transfer of 90 per cent of the shares to Fortis Healthcare, as void and bad in law and prays for a quashing of the arrangement between Rajan and Escorts.
Anil's counsel, P.K. Bansal has engaged Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi to appear in this segment of the long drawn litigation. Senior Counsels V.P. Singh and Mukul Rohtagi have also previously been engaged to appear on behalf of Anil Nanda at various points of time. The Escorts hospital, Rajan Nanda and other parties to the dispute have been represented by Senior Counsels A.M.Singhvi and Parag P.Tripathi. The matter is due for hearing on October 15.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Justice Katju's recusal brings RIL-BPCL dispute back to square one after six years in SC
- Clifford Chance dispute with IT department reaches Supreme Court - SC issues notice to Clifford Chance after AG appears
- Dispute of the day: Scrabble, Snake & Ladder, Monopoly are games - Supreme Court
- "Gas not your private property"- Government to Ambani brothers
- Recusals hit Delhi High Court: Justice Mudgal inherits HUL shares, recuses from HLL - Reckitt dispute
- Kingfisher - CCI dispute heats up - ELP and AG for CCI; Bachubhai for Kingfisher
- Legislation spree: UPA govt to moot bills for judges, corporate disputes, foreign universities and HIV/AIDS patients
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (2)










