Dubai: BR Shetty has launched a $15 billion legal claim against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants, alleging they helped enable fraud involving his businesses and left him facing repayment demands under guarantees he says he never signed.
The founder of NMC Healthcare and UAE Exchange filed the suit in the Bombay High Court on Tuesday, according to Reuters, which reviewed the court filing. His allegations include forged signatures, disputed transfers and repeated money-laundering alerts that he claims the bank failed to act on.
Bank of Baroda said on Wednesday that it had not been served with the suit and that the allegations remained untested in court. The lender said it would defend itself firmly, while continuing recovery proceedings against Shetty for approximately Rs28 billion in outstanding dues.
The lawsuit opens another legal front in the fallout from NMC’s collapse. Once the Gulf’s largest private healthcare provider, NMC Health entered administration in 2020 after disclosing debts of $6.6 billion, compared with earlier estimates of $2.1 billion, Reuters reported.
Get updated faster and for FREE: Download the Gulf News app now - simply click here.
Disputed signatures at the centre
A key part of Shetty’s case concerns personal guarantees and other documents that he alleges carry forged signatures. According to his filing, the bank relied on those documents to pursue him without properly verifying their authenticity.
A personal guarantee makes an individual responsible for a borrower’s debt if the borrower fails to repay it. The dispute over the signatures therefore concerns whether Shetty authorised commitments that could expose his own assets to recovery action.
Shetty also alleges that certain account instructions and transfers were unauthorised. He has asked the court to require disclosure of transaction instructions, account-opening documents, customer-verification records and details of officials who handled or verified transfers.
The suit names 26 defendants, including Bank of Baroda, 10 of its officials, former NMC executives Prasanth Manghat and Promoth Manghat, their associates, and two Indian companies, according to the filing.
Allegations over money movements
According to Shetty’s filing, Bank of Baroda served as the NMC group’s principal banker until around 2019. He alleges that the lender went beyond processing transactions and facilitated the diversion of funds through group companies and entities presented as independent suppliers.
The suit reportedly accuses bank officials of enabling “round-tripping” transactions. The term generally describes money moving through several entities and returning to its source, potentially obscuring the purpose of the transfers.
The filing alleges that the bank’s systems generated more than 100 money-laundering alerts that were subsequently closed. Shetty also accuses the lender of continuing to extend credit without adequate security and failing to disclose concerns about borrowings and transactions to auditors.
An alert flags activity for further scrutiny; it does not itself prove money laundering. Shetty’s case challenges both the disputed transactions and the bank’s handling of those warnings.
Three claims of $5 billion each
Shetty is seeking $5 billion in direct damages, $5 billion in consequential damages and another $5 billion for reputational harm, according to the filing.
The consequential damages include alleged losses of business and investment opportunities. His reputational claim concerns damage he says he suffered to his business standing and goodwill.
The filing also seeks interest at 18 per cent a year from the institution of the suit until payment. The amounts represent his demands for compensation, rather than damages awarded by the court.
Shetty has also requested preservation of banking records and electronic evidence, disclosure of assets allegedly funded through disputed transactions, and interim restrictions on certain defendants dealing with assets in India.
His filing alleges that some disputed proceeds were invested in Avitis Super Speciality Hospitals and SMARD Building Solutions. The supplied reports do not show that the court has granted the requested disclosures or asset restrictions.
Bank cites unpaid dues, old case
Bank of Baroda’s response sets out a separate account of its dealings with Shetty.
“The Bank has not been served with such a suit and cannot comment on the contents of pleadings which are untested in court,” it said in its stock exchange notification.
“If and when the Bank is served, the Bank will defend the suit firmly and take all steps necessary to protect its interests.”
The lender said it had obtained several decrees against Shetty while pursuing recovery and enforcement proceedings in India and the UAE. In its statement, it also said the Karnataka High Court restrained him from dealing with or disposing of his assets in 2021.
The bank said Shetty later asserted in National Company Law Tribunal proceedings that he was insolvent and unable to meet its dues. It also cited a New York lawsuit containing similar allegations, which it said was dismissed in July 2024.
Separate $600 million settlement
The new suit follows Bank of Baroda’s agreement to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by NMC group companies and their joint administrators. According to the bank’s disclosure, that settlement agreement was dated July 1, 2026.
Shetty’s filing states that the settlement involved no admission of liability. He argues that he was not a party to the agreement and that it does not extinguish his separate claims.
Bank of Baroda said the Abu Dhabi Global Market proceedings against it were discontinued following the settlement. In its statement, it said judgment remained reserved in related proceedings against Shetty and a former NMC executive concerning fraud, wrongful trading and fraudulent trading.
The lender said the Bombay lawsuit creates no immediate liability unless an order is passed or it must set aside money for potential damages. Shetty is seeking compensation for alleged wrongdoing; the bank continues to pursue him for debts it says remain unpaid. Neither position resolves the disputed guarantees and transactions now raised in his suit.