Passing a series of guidelines, a bench composed of Judges UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph said: “We urge all banks and financial institutions to notify: in respect of which FHL shares have been pledged with them; (b) to record the nature of the securities offered under such loan agreements. ”
The highest court also asked the lenders to record the details of the encumbered and unencumbered shares of Fortis Healthcare Ltd (FHL) on behalf of Fortis Healthcare Holding Private Ltd (FHHPL), held by them in September 2016, as well as the details of the encumbered and unencumbered shares of FHL in the name of FHHPL, held by them on August 11, 2017.
“… to give details of FHL shares on behalf of FHHPL, sold by banks / financial institutions from January 2017; (g) to indicate whether such charge created after August 11, 2017 was under ‘a new agreement or agreement and, if applicable, the details of that agreement / arrangement,’ ordered the lenders the court of first instance.
Lenders were also asked to disclose whether under this agreement / arrangement any further collateral had been given by the pledges.
The highest court will also hear the case on February 24.
He also refused to accept a bank’s submissions that the role of banks had already been considered by another court when the Singh brothers were found in contempt of court on November 15, 2019 for selling their stakes despite restrictive orders.
The Singh brothers were accused by Daiichi Sankyo and the lenders of collusion which led to the sale of the shares of Fortis Healthcare to IHH Berhad despite assurances given to the court not to dispose of the stakes.
Daiichi had claimed that Fortis Healthcare had received a loan of Rs 350 crore from banks. The product was diverted to a subsidiary and then disappeared.
“It was alleged that the banks / financial institutions had intervened in the cases pending before this Court, that they were fully aware of the award granted in favor of M / s Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd; and that the role of banks and financial institutions would, therefore, require further consideration, ”noted the Supreme Court.