BR Shetty Seeks $15 Billion From Bank Of Baroda Over Alleged Fraud Linked To NMC Collapse

BR Shetty, the founder of NMC Healthcare and UAE Exchange, has filed a $15 billion lawsuit against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants, alleging that fraudulent transactions involving his businesses were facilitated by the lender and that he was wrongly held liable for guarantees he claims he never signed.

 

The suit, filed in the Bombay High Court on Tuesday, seeks $5 billion each in direct damages, consequential losses and compensation for alleged reputational harm. According to Reuters, which reviewed the court filing, Shetty’s allegations include forged signatures, disputed fund transfers and the alleged failure of bank officials to act on repeated money-laundering alerts.

 

Bank of Baroda said on Wednesday that it had not received formal service of the lawsuit and could not comment on allegations that had yet to be tested in court. The lender said it would defend the case firmly if served, while continuing recovery proceedings against Shetty over approximately Rs28 billion in outstanding dues.

 

The legal action adds another dimension to the protracted fallout from the collapse of NMC Health, once the largest private healthcare provider in the Gulf. The company entered administration in 2020 after disclosing debts of $6.6 billion, substantially exceeding earlier estimates of $2.1 billion.

 

The dispute now brings questions over banking controls, corporate transactions and personal guarantees into focus, with Shetty and the bank advancing sharply different accounts of their financial dealings.

 

Disputed Guarantees At The Heart Of The Case

 

A central element of Shetty’s claim concerns personal guarantees and other documents that he alleges bear forged signatures. He contends that Bank of Baroda relied on these documents to pursue him for liabilities without adequately establishing whether he had authorised the commitments.

 

Personal guarantees can make an individual responsible for a company’s borrowing if the borrower defaults. The authenticity of the disputed documents is therefore critical to determining whether Shetty can lawfully be held liable for the obligations in question.

 

Shetty has also challenged the validity of certain account instructions and fund transfers, alleging that transactions were carried out without proper authorisation. He has asked the court to direct the disclosure of transaction instructions, account-opening documents, customer-verification records and information identifying bank officials involved in processing or verifying the disputed transfers.

 

The 26 defendants named in the suit include Bank of Baroda, 10 of its officials, former NMC executives Prasanth Manghat and Promoth Manghat, their associates and two Indian companies.

 

The requested disclosures could help establish how the transactions were initiated, what verification procedures were followed and whether the bank's internal controls were applied appropriately. Those questions remain allegations in the proceedings and have not been established by a court.

 

Allegations Of Fund Diversion And Compliance Failures

 

According to Shetty’s filing, Bank of Baroda acted as the NMC group's principal banker until around 2019. He alleges that the bank did more than process routine payments, claiming that it facilitated the movement of funds through group companies and entities presented as independent suppliers.

 

The suit reportedly alleges that bank officials enabled transactions involving “round-tripping”, a practice in which money passes through several entities before returning to its original source. Depending on the circumstances, such arrangements can obscure the origin, destination or commercial purpose of funds.

 

Shetty further alleges that the bank’s systems generated more than 100 money-laundering alerts that were subsequently closed. He claims the lender continued extending credit without adequate security and failed to disclose concerns about borrowings and transactions to auditors.

 

The allegations raise questions about the distinction between identifying suspicious activity and taking appropriate action in response. A money-laundering alert is a signal for further scrutiny, not proof that a transaction is criminal. Establishing whether the bank acted improperly would require examination of the underlying transactions, the information available to officials and the reasons for closing the alerts.

 

The lawsuit seeks access to records that Shetty says are necessary to substantiate his claims. The bank has not admitted wrongdoing in the new proceedings, and the allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

 

Three Claims Of $5 Billion Each

 

Shetty’s compensation claim is divided into three categories: $5 billion in direct damages, $5 billion in consequential damages and $5 billion for alleged injury to his reputation.

 

The consequential damages claim relates to business and investment opportunities that he says were lost as a result of the alleged misconduct. The reputational component concerns damage he claims to have suffered to his commercial standing and goodwill.

 

He has also sought interest at an annual rate of 18 per cent from the date the suit was instituted until payment.

 

These figures represent the compensation demanded by Shetty, not damages awarded by the court. The scale of the claim means that the proceedings could become a significant legal battle over both the alleged banking misconduct and the losses attributed to it.

 

In addition to monetary compensation, Shetty has asked the court to preserve banking records and electronic evidence, disclose assets allegedly funded through disputed transactions, and impose interim restrictions on certain defendants dealing with assets in India.

 

His filing alleges that some of the disputed proceeds were invested in Avitis Super Speciality Hospitals and SMARD Building Solutions. The available reports do not establish that these investments were funded by illicit proceeds, nor do they indicate that the court has granted the requested disclosure orders or asset restrictions.

 

Bank Points To Recovery Proceedings And Earlier Litigation

 

Bank of Baroda has responded by emphasising its efforts to recover money it says Shetty owes.

 

In its stock exchange notification, the lender said it had obtained several decrees against him and was pursuing recovery and enforcement proceedings in India and the UAE. It also said the Karnataka High Court had restrained Shetty from dealing with or disposing of his assets in 2021.

 

The bank further stated that Shetty subsequently claimed in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal that he was insolvent and unable to meet his financial obligations to the lender.

 

It also referred to a lawsuit in New York containing similar allegations, which it said was dismissed in July 2024.

 

The bank's position highlights a parallel legal dispute: while Shetty is seeking damages for alleged wrongdoing by the lender and other defendants, the bank maintains that outstanding dues remain recoverable from him. The existence of recovery proceedings does not, by itself, resolve the authenticity of the guarantees or the allegations concerning the handling of transactions.

 

$600 Million Settlement Adds Another Dimension

 

The new lawsuit follows Bank of Baroda’s agreement to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by NMC group companies and their joint administrators. The bank’s disclosure states that the settlement agreement was dated July 1, 2026.

 

According to Shetty’s filing, the settlement did not include an admission of liability. He argues that he was not a party to the agreement and that it does not extinguish his separate claims against the bank and the other defendants.

 

Bank of Baroda said proceedings against it in the Abu Dhabi Global Market were discontinued following the settlement. It also said judgment remained reserved in related proceedings against Shetty and a former NMC executive concerning allegations of fraud, wrongful trading and fraudulent trading.

 

The lender has maintained that the Bombay lawsuit does not create an immediate liability unless a court issues an order or the bank is required to make provision for potential damages.

 

The settlement and the new claim concern different aspects of the wider NMC dispute. The settlement addressed claims brought by group companies and their joint administrators, while Shetty is seeking personal compensation based on allegations that include disputed guarantees and transactions.

 

Questions Over Banking Oversight And Personal Liability

 

The case places several issues under judicial scrutiny: the verification of personal guarantees, the monitoring of corporate fund movements, the handling of suspicious-transaction alerts and the responsibilities of banks dealing with complex corporate groups.

 

Its outcome will depend on the evidence supporting Shetty’s allegations, the bank’s response and the court’s assessment of the disputed documents and transactions. The requested records could prove important in establishing who authorised particular transfers, what the bank knew and whether the relevant procedures were followed.

 

For Bank of Baroda, the case comes as it continues to pursue recovery of dues it says remain unpaid. For Shetty, it represents an attempt to establish that alleged misconduct contributed to his financial and reputational losses and that he should not be held responsible for guarantees he says are unauthorised.

 

Neither side’s position has been finally resolved by the new suit. Until the claims are tested in court, the allegations of fraud and compliance failures remain unproven, while the lender’s recovery claims continue on a separate legal track.