NMC Founder Seeks $15 Billion Security From Bank of Baroda

NMC Healthcare founder Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty has approached the Bombay High Court seeking security for his $15 billion damages claim against Bank of Baroda, along with disclosure of the bank’s reported $600 million settlement with NMC’s joint administrators. He has also requested the preservation and forensic examination of the lender’s electronic records, alleging that they could contain evidence relevant to his claims of fraud, negligence and collusion.

Shetty has filed two interim applications in his commercial suit against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants. The applications, affirmed on October 29, 2026, seek financial safeguards, disclosure of documents and measures to prevent the destruction or alteration of potentially relevant records.

The legal action is connected to allegations concerning financial transactions involving companies in the NMC group after Shetty relinquished control. The allegations have not been established in court, and Bank of Baroda has not yet filed its response to the underlying suit.

Shetty Seeks Security for $15 Billion Damages Claim

In one of the interim applications, Shetty has asked the Bombay High Court to direct Bank of Baroda to furnish security of $15 billion, equivalent to approximately Rs 1.44 lakh crore, corresponding to the damages claimed in his commercial suit. He has also sought interest at 18% per annum on the claimed amount.

As an alternative, Shetty has requested that the bank earmark the amount through a specific provision or reserve in its books and financial statements. He has also asked the court to direct the lender to disclose the claim as a contingent liability in its balance sheet, annual report and other financial disclosures.

The request is intended to address the financial exposure arising from the litigation while the case proceeds. However, the amount represents Shetty’s claim and should not be interpreted as an established liability or a sum that the bank has been ordered to pay.

Application Seeks Disclosure of Bank Records

The second application focuses on the disclosure and preservation of documents held by Bank of Baroda and ten of its officers. Relying primarily on Order XI Rules 12 to 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Shetty has sought affidavits of documents from the bank and the concerned officers within four weeks.

The requested material covers records that Shetty considers relevant to the allegations in the suit. These include banking documents, internal communications, transaction records and other information connected to the disputed financial activities.

A key part of the application is a request for the appointment of a Court Commissioner, assisted by an independent forensic expert, to examine and create forensic images of the bank’s electronic systems.

The proposed exercise would cover:

• Core banking and trade finance systems.
• SWIFT records and related transaction information.
• Emails and electronic communications.
• Electronic devices and other relevant digital records.
• Records held at the bank’s Abu Dhabi, Dubai and DIFC branches.
• Relevant records from Bank of Baroda’s wider GCC operations.

Shetty has also requested that the original electronic data be preserved, hash values be recorded and a proper chain of custody be maintained. These safeguards are intended to help establish whether the records remain unchanged and can be relied upon during forensic examination and subsequent court proceedings.

Demand for Disclosure of Abu Dhabi Court Proceedings

The application also seeks documents connected to two proceedings before the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts. The requested material includes pleadings, witness statements and expert reports filed in those cases.

These proceedings are relevant to the wider dispute because they involved Bank of Baroda and NMC’s joint administrators. The administrators had accused the bank of fraud and wilful negligence in relation to its anti-money laundering and Know Your Customer (KYC) processes.

Shetty’s application seeks access to the records so that the issues raised in the earlier proceedings can be examined alongside the allegations made in his commercial suit. The requests remain subject to the Bombay High Court’s consideration.

Shetty Seeks Details of Bank of Baroda’s $600 Million Settlement

One of the most significant demands concerns the reported $600 million settlement between Bank of Baroda and NMC’s joint administrators in June 2026. The amount is approximately Rs 5,700 crore.

Shetty has asked the court to direct the bank to disclose the settlement agreement and related records, including board minutes, accounting documents and communications with auditors and financial regulators.

The requested disclosure also covers communications with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE).

The settlement is central to Shetty’s application because of the sequence of events preceding and following the agreement. According to his plea, Bank of Baroda’s FY26 annual report, published in May 2026, described its position in the ADGM proceedings as strong and did not make a provision for the claims.

The bank subsequently agreed to the reported $600 million settlement in June. It disclosed the development to stock exchanges on July 2 under Regulation 30 of the SEBI Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations.

The settlement was stated to have been reached without an admission of liability. Its detailed terms have not been made public, making the disclosure sought by Shetty an important part of the ongoing dispute.

Forensic Examination of Guarantees and Signatures Sought

Shetty has also requested the production of original guarantees and letters that allegedly carry his signatures. He wants the documents deposited before the court for forensic examination.

The request relates to his allegations that forged or templated signatures were used in connection with financial transactions involving NMC group companies. A forensic examination could help determine whether the disputed signatures are authentic, although no finding on the allegations has been made by the court.

In addition, the application seeks a litigation hold covering relevant records. This would require the suspension of routine deletion and backup-rotation policies for material potentially connected to the case.

Shetty has asked the bank to submit an affidavit identifying where relevant records are stored and explaining whether any such information has been deleted since January 1, 2012.

He has sought immediate directions for preservation, with the disclosure and discovery process to follow within four weeks or after the filing of written statements, as directed by the court.

What Is the $15 Billion NMC Healthcare Lawsuit About?

Shetty’s underlying commercial suit was filed on October 13, 2026, and seeks $15 billion in damages from Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants. The claim is divided into three broad categories:

• Direct damages: Losses that Shetty alleges resulted directly from the disputed transactions and actions.
• Consequential losses: Additional financial losses, including the alleged loss of business opportunities.
• Reputational damage: Loss of goodwill and damage to his personal and business reputation.

According to the suit, fraudulent transactions, round-tripping and forged or templated signatures were allegedly used to siphon funds from group companies after Shetty relinquished control. He has accused Bank of Baroda of facilitating the disputed transactions in its capacity as NMC’s principal banker until around 2019.

The allegations form the basis of the substantial damages claim. However, the claims have not been tested in court, and the filing of the suit does not establish that the bank or the other defendants committed the alleged acts.

Bank of Baroda’s Earlier Dispute With NMC Administrators

The interim applications also refer to the earlier litigation before the ADGM Courts involving Bank of Baroda and NMC’s joint administrators. The administrators had raised allegations concerning the bank’s anti-money laundering controls and KYC procedures.

Those allegations are relevant to Shetty’s case because he is seeking to examine whether the bank’s handling of transactions and its internal compliance processes were connected to the losses claimed in the commercial suit.

The reported $600 million settlement with the administrators has added another dimension to the dispute. Shetty’s request for the agreement and associated records seeks to clarify the circumstances of the settlement, the bank’s internal assessment and the communications surrounding the agreement.

However, the settlement was expressly described as being without an admission of liability. Its existence alone does not establish wrongdoing by Bank of Baroda or prove the allegations made in Shetty’s separate lawsuit.

What Happens Next in the Bombay High Court?

The Bombay High Court will have to consider the interim applications and decide whether to grant the requested financial security, disclosure and preservation directions. The court will also need to consider the scope of any forensic examination and the extent to which the requested documents are relevant to the underlying dispute.

Bank of Baroda has not yet filed its reply to the main suit, and the allegations against the lender and the other defendants remain untested. The bank’s response and the court’s decisions on the interim applications will be important developments in the proceedings.

The case could bring greater scrutiny to the financial transactions involving NMC group companies, the bank’s earlier dealings with the group’s administrators and the reported settlement reached in June 2026. For now, Shetty is seeking to secure the claimed amount and obtain access to records that he believes will support his case.

The central questions before the court will concern the evidence supporting the allegations, the bank’s role in the disputed transactions and whether the requested financial and documentary safeguards are justified while the $15 billion commercial claim is pending.