The Bombay High Court has restrained former Clippings CEO Vinayak Shrivastav and other defendants from dealing with their assets and ordered disclosure on oath, in a suit over an alleged diversion of about Rs 222.62 crore. The allegations are untested.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted limited ad interim relief to Clippings LLC and its Indian subsidiary, acting through court-appointed co-receivers, restraining Vinayak Shrivastav, the company’s former chief executive officer, and seven other defendants from disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third-party rights in any of their assets, and directing them to file sworn disclosure affidavits within ten days [Clippings LLC and Others v. Vinayak Shrivastav and Others].
Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the order on October 26, 2026 in Interim Application (L) No. 30032 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 29972 of 2026. The fraud and forgery claims are the plaintiffs’ allegations, the order is ad interim, and the Court has made no final finding on the merits.
How the case reached here
The suit was filed on August 27, 2026 by Mark Kronfeld and Bradford J. Sandler, co-receivers appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery for Clippings LLC, a Delaware company, and its Indian subsidiary. The plaintiffs allege that a Credit Agreement dated October 1, 2025 with the lender Park View SPV III, for a credit line of USD 55 million of which USD 53.15 million was disbursed, was procured on forged documents and fabricated signatures.
They say the proceeds, meant to refinance about USD 30 million owed to Bluestone VideoVerse Holdings LLC, were diverted, and that about USD 23.27 million was routed to Mr. Shrivastav, his family members and affiliated entities. The suit claims about Rs 222.62 crore.
The first defendant is the company’s co-founder, largest shareholder and former chief executive officer. Defendants 2 to 8 are family members or entities owned or controlled by him. The defendants argued that the receivers had suppressed material agreements and corporate emails.
What the Court said
Justice Doctor held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case, and noted that the first defendant, the central player in the matter, had not met the most serious allegations of forgery and fabrication concerning the Credit Agreement. On the defendants’ suppression argument, the Court said it viewed the documents allegedly held back with the utmost suspicion at this stage. In the Court’s words, the plaintiffs had:
“made out a strong prima facie case”
The directions
The Court granted relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (f). The defendants must file affidavits on oath disclosing all assets in India and abroad, including bank accounts, investments and assets held through family members or entities, and must produce corporate and income tax returns for the preceding six assessment years, in India, Dubai and elsewhere, with balance sheets and related statements, within ten days.
The restraint covers all assets and bank accounts. Defendants 2 to 8, but not the first defendant, may operate their bank accounts in the normal course of business and for necessary daily expenses. The Court did not order the security the plaintiffs had sought. The matter stands over to November 25, 2026, with ad interim relief continuing.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Ramprastha Group MD Sandeep Yadav in ED Case
Why the order matters
The order shows an Indian court giving ad interim effect to a foreign receivership by freezing dealings and compelling sworn disclosure of worldwide assets before trial, on a prima facie view that the principal defendant had not answered the forgery allegations. It remains an interim order, and the defendants’ case is yet to be decided.
Case Title: Clippings LLC and Others v. Vinayak Shrivastav and Others [Interim Application (L) No. 30032 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 29972 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Arif S. Doctor, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond and others for the plaintiffs; Senior Advocates Janak Dwarkadas and Zal Andhyarujina and Advocate Ankit Lohia and others for the defendants