Today(on 15th March), The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, instructs Ashneer Grover to remove recent allegations against BharatPe and its chairman, Rajnish Kumar. This underscores the ongoing legal clash in India’s fintech sector, with The Economic Times also directed to retract articles disclosing Grover’s letters to the RBI.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Today(on 15th March), The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, has issued a directive against Ashneer Grover, the embattled co-founder of the fintech giant BharatPe. The court’s order mandates the removal of recent allegations made by Grover against BharatPe and its board chairman, Rajnish Kumar.
Justice Singh’s decree mandates the retraction of two articles disclosing Grover’s correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to curb the dissemination of potentially defamatory information. Moreover, all news reports stemming from Grover’s contentious letters are to be withdrawn, underscoring the judiciary’s resolute stance against defamation and misinformation.
The court’s injunction does not stop there; it further prohibits Grover from issuing any additional defamatory statements against BharatPe. Should any such allegations surface on social media platforms, they are to be removed within a 48-hour window, demonstrating the court’s commitment to curbing slanderous content online.
This dispute originates from BharatPe’s accusations against Grover for violating prior court orders and his own commitment to abstain from making defamatory statements about the company. BharatPe’s legal representatives contend that Grover’s communications to the RBI included baseless and disparaging allegations aimed at damaging the company’s reputation. In particular, Grover’s initial letter urged an RBI probe into BharatPe for allegedly participating in fraudulent conduct, while his subsequent letter made serious allegations against board chairman Rajnish Kumar regarding improper distribution of equity shares.
In response to these allegations, Justice Singh emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders and commitments, stating:
“You (Grover) are not to take any actions against the company. You will refrain from making public statements of this nature… These are reputable companies. Any disputes will be addressed through proper channels. However, you will not tarnish the company’s reputation in this manner.”
The court also addressed Grover’s controversial tweet, which disparaged all SBI Chairmen as “petty,” following a Supreme Court decision. This tweet, according to the court, was not only unnecessary but also a veiled jab at BharatPe’s chairman, thereby breaching the court’s directives and Grover’s own undertaking.
Advocate Giriraj Subramanium, representing Grover, argued that his client did not directly disclose the controversial letters to the press. He suggested that the media’s interest in the corporate dispute resulted in the publication of these allegations. However, despite this defense, the court remained unconvinced and hinted at potential summonses to explain the acquisition of Grover’s letters, although no formal order was issued in this regard.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, leading the legal team for BharatPe, characterized Grover as a “habitual offender” whose conduct consistently seeks to damage the company’s reputation, particularly amidst ongoing criminal proceedings. Sibal’s comments underscore the entrenched hostility and legal battles between the parties, adding complexity to the narrative surrounding this high-profile dispute.
ALSO READ: Adani-Hindenburg| Supreme Court Upholds Sebi’s Investigation Amid Fresh Challenges
BharatPe’s legal actions against Grover and his family, seeking over Rs. 88.67 crore in damages, underscore the financial and reputational stakes involved. The company’s pursuit of details regarding Grover’s financial affairs adds another layer to this multifaceted legal battle.
The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh on Grover for disregarding its order and using “unparliamentary” language on social media platforms against his former employers.
