Thirty-six scheduled assets of Bankim Brahmbhatt and thirteen of his associate Mohit N. Rao can no longer be dealt with. The Gujarat High Court has frozen Bankim Brahmbhatt’s assets in India and abroad in a Rs 2,337 crore international fraud suit brought by seven US telecom companies he once ran, on allegations that are yet to be tested.
Ahmedabad: In a recovery suit over about US$243 million allegedly diverted from companies Brahmbhatt controlled, the Gujarat High Court on Monday, November 2, 2026, went further than an Ahmedabad civil court’s limited injunction and barred former telecom chief executive Bankim Brahmbhatt and his associate Mohit N. Rao from dealing with any of their assets, in India or abroad [Brodband Telecome Inc & Ors. v. Bankim Brahmbhatt & Ors.].
Justice D.N. Ray passed the common oral order in Appeals from Order Nos. 162 and 163 of 2026, filed by Broadband Telecom Inc and six other companies. The matter was mentioned at 11 a.m. and taken up at 2.30 p.m. the same day, and notice is returnable on January 11, 2027.
What the order covers
Pending further orders, Brahmbhatt and Rao, whether acting themselves or through family, agents or anyone claiming under them, may not transfer, alienate, dissipate or otherwise deal with any movable or immovable property, in India or abroad, in which they hold a direct or indirect interest. The order names 36 scheduled assets of Brahmbhatt and 13 of Rao, and extends to any other assets under their control. A similar injunction runs against the other respondents’ scheduled assets.
Within two weeks, the respondents must disclose on affidavit every asset held directly or indirectly since September 25, 2020, along with all transfers, gifts and encumbrances since that date, supported by bank statements. In the connected appeal, the Court appointed Assistant Government Pleader Hetal Patel and advocate Aishwarya Gupta as joint receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC over the 49,032 shares (41.53%) of Bankai Infotech Private Limited. The appellants are to pay each of them Rs 1 lakh on account within three days.
The appellants’ case against Brahmbhatt
The appellants say that Brahmbhatt was, at the relevant time, their sole director, Chief Executive Officer and ultimate beneficial owner, holding about 87.5% of the beneficial ownership. Their case is that, in collusion with Rao, he showed lenders a fictitious telecommunications business model and, through allegedly forged agreements, invoices and receivables, raised financing of nearly US$500 million. That money, they allege, was diverted to entities he controlled, including Bankai International Private Limited, Mauritius, and onward to others, among them companies in India.
The companies were admitted to proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, and Brahmbhatt began personal Chapter 11 proceedings on August 12, 2025. After that, the appellants allege, he transferred beneficial interests in Indian companies, particularly Bankai Infotech Private Limited, and control of Bankai International Private Limited, Singapore, to an entity associated with another respondent, without disclosure or permission. These allegations are yet to be tested, and the respondents have not been heard so far.
Orders from the United States, Singapore and Ahmedabad
On September 17, 2025, the US Bankruptcy Court appointed John D. Baumgartner as the companies’ Chief Restructuring Officer. By an ex parte sealed order of October 15, 2026, it recorded substantial evidence of fraud and a real risk of dissipation of assets, and permitted proceedings in India and Singapore. The Singapore High Court followed on October 23, 2026, granting ex parte injunctive relief and appointing interim receivers and managers.
The companies then filed Special Civil Suit No. 415 of 2026 before the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Ahmedabad (Rural), claiming about US$243 million (Rs 2,337 crore). On October 30, 2026, the civil court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction only over 49,032 equity shares of Bankai Infotech Private Limited and deferred the remaining prayers until notice to the defendants.
Why the High Court did not stop where the civil court did
Justice Ray held that Brahmbhatt, by seeking bankruptcy himself, had “by his own pleadings” disentitled himself from holding the assets in dispute, and that the US and Singapore orders showed a prima facie case. On irreparable loss, the Court observed:
“Doubtless, if the assets are not protected and permitted to be frittered away, as apprehended by the appellants herein, there will be no recovery worth the name in favour of the appellants herein. In such view of the matter, the appellants would be put to irreparable loss and/or injury.”
The civil court, the Court said, “though has rightly granted the injunction, as it did, but also was in error in stopping short of granting the full relief as prayed for by the appellants herein on the very same grounds that the partial injunction was granted.” It referred to Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. on appellate interference with discretion, and traced the freezing injunction to Lord Denning’s rulings in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis and Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA (1975).
Why the order matters
Worldwide freezing injunctions of the Mareva kind are rarely seen in Indian courts, and this one comes with disclosure directions and a receivership, in a cross-border fraud claim already before courts in the United States and Singapore. It signals that where foreign insolvency courts have flagged a risk of dissipation, Indian courts may act quickly and ex parte to keep assets within reach until the defendants are heard. The order is ad-interim, and the Court has expressed no final view on the fraud allegations.
Case Title: Brodband Telecome Inc & Ors. v. Bankim Brahmbhatt & Ors.
Case Number: R/Appeal from Order No. 162 of 2026 with No. 163 of 2026 (and Civil Applications for interim relief)
Bench: Justice D.N. Ray
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
For the Appellants: Senior Advocates Saurabh Soparkar and Mihir Thakore, with Nisarg Desai, Harshit Thanki, Anuj Berry, Atul Jain, Abhimanyu Chaturvedi, Jasleen Virk and Prabhu Gupta, for Gandhi Law Associates
Impugned: Order dated October 30, 2026, of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Civil Suit No. 415 of 2026
![[Hema Committee Case] "Threat Complaints to Be Directed to Nodal Officer" - Kerala HC Steps Up Oversight in Hema Committee Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/KERALA-HC-2.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
