The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued summons to Ashneer Grover and fintech firm BharatPe on a suit by the company's co-founder Bhavik Koladiya seeking to reclaim shares he transferred to his former colleague. .Justice Prateek Jalan took note of the submission by counsel for Grover that he would not create any third party rights in the 16,110 shares in question, until further orders. The Court said in its order,"D1 (Grover) is bound to the aforesaid statement and is directed to file an undertaking to this effect within one week from today. Reply to application in four weeks, rejoinder in two weeks thereafter."The matter will now be heard by the court on March 16..Appearing for Koladiya, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought an interim injunction restraining Grover from creating any third party rights in the shares which are the subject matter of the suit. He argued,"This is an unlisted company. I agreed to share 1,611 shares of a total value of around ₹87 lakh. The shares have now become 16,000. It is my case that the title need not pass to him (Grover). Even in 2021, this man on WhatsApp showed that the shares are still mine. I am asking for my goods back which I have given."Justice Jalan responded,"What is the material to establish this? Your case is that the sale was a device because of some reasons that were in the US against you. The way I see it, you have entered a transaction which was not intended as a transaction of sale."Rohatgi replied,"Transaction had to done as per an agreement. Here, the condition is that he (Grover) will pay. I will give my shares and he will pay.""Why did he (Koladiya) give his shares?" the Court asked at this point. "He is a gullible person what can you say?" I was the founder of this company. I am entitled to get my shares back," was Rohatgi's response..When Justice Jalan asked whether settlement talks were underway between Koladiya and Grover, Rohatgi said,"No. The company has filed a suit against this man (Grover)."Counsel appearing for Grover at this point told the Court,"The agreement is from December 2018. The agreement filed is a forged and fabricated document.""If this agreement goes, then the transfer of shares to him will also go," Rohatgi shot back.The Court then suggested to Grover's counsel,"As far as these shares are concerned...apparently there have been some news reports that you want to sell shares...Instead of me reaching a prima facie finding, why don't you file your reply?"In an attempt to explain the confusion that arose in this case, counsel for Grover told the Court that there were two agreements. Referring to one of those, he said,"The purchase consideration shall be discharged in cash or as in the manner agreed between two sides. The agreement was executed the same day. This is the pre-execution version of the agreement."However, Justice Jalan said,"The number of shares is not here, the money is not here (in the agreement). For the moment, as I see it, I don't yet find a second executed agreement that even prima facie you are relying upon."Grover's lawyer contended,"What they have done is that page 6, which is the signed version, is totally different from the other pages. He has taken a page of the agreement signed with me and attached it to an agreement signed with other investors."The Court then said,"Your allegation of fraud is something that has to be proved at trial... It is possible what you are saying is true.. But there are other possibilities as well.".Grover's counsel told the Court,"My wife has paid ₹8 crore to the plaintiff's wife."Rohatgi intervened, saying,"My lords, we should first establish that he has paid. His stand is that ₹8 crore has been paid and ₹88 lakh is part of this ₹8 crore."Referring to Grover's book, the senior counsel added,"The book says his wife gave my wife some loan. This was not part of my transaction. The fact of the matter is I gave him shares. There has to be some document somewhere to suggest that he paid me...I am only saying preserve the sales. I am not asking give it to me. He can file a reply. It is an unlisted company so the values are not in the market.".Along with Rohatgi, Koladiya was represented by Senior Advocates Gaurav Pachnanda and Akhil Sibal, who were briefed by Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Deepankar Mishra and Karmanya Sharma from Sim and San Attorneys at Law..Koladiya founded the fintech firm in 2017 with Shashvat Nakrani. In 2018, they started looking for a chief executive, after which Grover came on board. According to a news report in The Economic Times, Koladiya (the largest shareholder in the company) had to leave allegedly because his past conviction in the United States in a credit card fraud case was hindering talks with investors. The same ET report said that as he resigned, Koladiya transferred his shares to Grover, Nakrani and one Mansukhbhai Mohanbhai Nakrani, as well as some other early-stage and angel investors. Koladiya agreed to transfer 1,611 of his 2,900 shares (which are now 16,110 shares) to Grover by way of an agreement dated December 3, 2022. The consideration for the transfer of the 1,611 shares was approximately ₹88 lakh. He has claimed that till date, Grover has not paid the purchase consideration.Between February and early March 2022, Grover started claiming property in the 16,110 shares by publicly proclaiming himself to be the single largest shareholder of BharatPe. Grover refused to return Koladiya's shares when requested, prompting the latter to move the High Court.Now, 3.10% of the 8.43% shareholding of BharatPe, which Grover claims to be in his ownership, is subject to the outcome of this case.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued summons to Ashneer Grover and fintech firm BharatPe on a suit by the company's co-founder Bhavik Koladiya seeking to reclaim shares he transferred to his former colleague. .Justice Prateek Jalan took note of the submission by counsel for Grover that he would not create any third party rights in the 16,110 shares in question, until further orders. The Court said in its order,"D1 (Grover) is bound to the aforesaid statement and is directed to file an undertaking to this effect within one week from today. Reply to application in four weeks, rejoinder in two weeks thereafter."The matter will now be heard by the court on March 16..Appearing for Koladiya, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought an interim injunction restraining Grover from creating any third party rights in the shares which are the subject matter of the suit. He argued,"This is an unlisted company. I agreed to share 1,611 shares of a total value of around ₹87 lakh. The shares have now become 16,000. It is my case that the title need not pass to him (Grover). Even in 2021, this man on WhatsApp showed that the shares are still mine. I am asking for my goods back which I have given."Justice Jalan responded,"What is the material to establish this? Your case is that the sale was a device because of some reasons that were in the US against you. The way I see it, you have entered a transaction which was not intended as a transaction of sale."Rohatgi replied,"Transaction had to done as per an agreement. Here, the condition is that he (Grover) will pay. I will give my shares and he will pay.""Why did he (Koladiya) give his shares?" the Court asked at this point. "He is a gullible person what can you say?" I was the founder of this company. I am entitled to get my shares back," was Rohatgi's response..When Justice Jalan asked whether settlement talks were underway between Koladiya and Grover, Rohatgi said,"No. The company has filed a suit against this man (Grover)."Counsel appearing for Grover at this point told the Court,"The agreement is from December 2018. The agreement filed is a forged and fabricated document.""If this agreement goes, then the transfer of shares to him will also go," Rohatgi shot back.The Court then suggested to Grover's counsel,"As far as these shares are concerned...apparently there have been some news reports that you want to sell shares...Instead of me reaching a prima facie finding, why don't you file your reply?"In an attempt to explain the confusion that arose in this case, counsel for Grover told the Court that there were two agreements. Referring to one of those, he said,"The purchase consideration shall be discharged in cash or as in the manner agreed between two sides. The agreement was executed the same day. This is the pre-execution version of the agreement."However, Justice Jalan said,"The number of shares is not here, the money is not here (in the agreement). For the moment, as I see it, I don't yet find a second executed agreement that even prima facie you are relying upon."Grover's lawyer contended,"What they have done is that page 6, which is the signed version, is totally different from the other pages. He has taken a page of the agreement signed with me and attached it to an agreement signed with other investors."The Court then said,"Your allegation of fraud is something that has to be proved at trial... It is possible what you are saying is true.. But there are other possibilities as well.".Grover's counsel told the Court,"My wife has paid ₹8 crore to the plaintiff's wife."Rohatgi intervened, saying,"My lords, we should first establish that he has paid. His stand is that ₹8 crore has been paid and ₹88 lakh is part of this ₹8 crore."Referring to Grover's book, the senior counsel added,"The book says his wife gave my wife some loan. This was not part of my transaction. The fact of the matter is I gave him shares. There has to be some document somewhere to suggest that he paid me...I am only saying preserve the sales. I am not asking give it to me. He can file a reply. It is an unlisted company so the values are not in the market.".Along with Rohatgi, Koladiya was represented by Senior Advocates Gaurav Pachnanda and Akhil Sibal, who were briefed by Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Deepankar Mishra and Karmanya Sharma from Sim and San Attorneys at Law..Koladiya founded the fintech firm in 2017 with Shashvat Nakrani. In 2018, they started looking for a chief executive, after which Grover came on board. According to a news report in The Economic Times, Koladiya (the largest shareholder in the company) had to leave allegedly because his past conviction in the United States in a credit card fraud case was hindering talks with investors. The same ET report said that as he resigned, Koladiya transferred his shares to Grover, Nakrani and one Mansukhbhai Mohanbhai Nakrani, as well as some other early-stage and angel investors. Koladiya agreed to transfer 1,611 of his 2,900 shares (which are now 16,110 shares) to Grover by way of an agreement dated December 3, 2022. The consideration for the transfer of the 1,611 shares was approximately ₹88 lakh. He has claimed that till date, Grover has not paid the purchase consideration.Between February and early March 2022, Grover started claiming property in the 16,110 shares by publicly proclaiming himself to be the single largest shareholder of BharatPe. Grover refused to return Koladiya's shares when requested, prompting the latter to move the High Court.Now, 3.10% of the 8.43% shareholding of BharatPe, which Grover claims to be in his ownership, is subject to the outcome of this case.
