सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फोर्टिस फोरेंसिक ऑडिट को सीमित किया, बैंकों की व्यापक जांच पर रोक लगाई

SC limits Fortis forensic audit, bars 'fishing and roving' bank inquiry

Supreme Court says the forensic audit must remain confined to transactions involving Fortis Healthcare, its holding company, judgment debtors and concerned banks

Listen to This Article

The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that a forensic audit ordered by the Delhi High Court into transactions involving Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL) shares cannot be expanded into a general probe into the affairs of 17 banks and financial institutions.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the audit must remain confined to transactions between FHL, Fortis Healthcare Holdings Private Limited (FHHPL), the judgment debtors and the concerned banks.

A judgment debtor is a person or business that a court orders to pay a specific amount of money or fulfil a legal obligation to another party.

The proceedings stem from the enforcement of Daiichi Sankyo’s ₹2,562 crore arbitral award against the Singh brothers. The Delhi High Court had directed a forensic examination of the role of banks in loans secured against FHL shares.

The Supreme Court said the audit could cover the creation and modification of security, maintenance of security margins, top-up arrangements, invocation and sale of pledged shares, release of securities and outstanding liabilities relating to the relevant transactions.

Also Read

The forensic auditor has also been tasked with preparing bank-wise details of the facilities, their value, shares pledged, additional securities transferred, invocation and sale of securities, release of security, outstanding exposure and applicable court orders.

The Bench said the High Court’s directions could not be construed as permitting a “fishing and roving enquiry” into the banks’ affairs beyond their dealings with FHL, FHHPL and the judgment debtors.

The clarification came while the court was hearing pleas by Yes Bank and Axis Bank challenging the forensic audit directions.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Yes Bank, said the execution proceedings had initially sought a forensic audit involving 17 banks and financial institutions, but Daiichi had subsequently clarified that it was not pursuing a separate forensic audit of the banks.

He argued that Yes Bank, which was neither a judgment debtor nor a garnishee, could not be subjected to an expansive forensic exercise. He also pointed to the bank’s regulatory oversight by the Reserve Bank of India.

Senior Advocate Naveen Pahwa, appearing for DCB Bank, said the loan extended by his client had been fully repaid on August 8, 2017, and the pledge had thereafter been released.

DCB, he said, had never invoked the pledge and there was no allegation warranting its inclusion in the forensic exercise.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Daiichi, said the company had initially sought scrutiny of the banks but did not subsequently press for a separate audit. He nevertheless maintained that the relevant transactions needed examination to establish what happened to the FHL shares and whether earlier court directions had been followed.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Fortis Healthcare, supported the audit, saying the earlier proceedings had not conclusively established the fate of the shares.

More From This Section

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Sep 29 2026 | 9:32 PM IST

Powered by Nyaya 247 News