The Delhi High Court, on Friday, dismissed an interim application filed by BharatPe co-founder Shashvat Nakrani, seeking to restrain the fintech unicorn’s former managing director (MD) Ashneer Grover from selling or alienating the shares Nakrani had sold to him.
Justice Sachin Datta, a single-judge bench, rejected Nakrani’s plea but directed Grover to inform Nakrani before selling or transferring the shares in question. Nakrani alleged that he had transferred shares to Grover without receiving payment, while Grover claimed to have paid for them in cash.
In the backdrop of BharatPe’s founding in March 2018 by Nakrani and Bhavik Koladiya, with Grover joining as the third co-founder and board member in July 2018, the dispute involves the sale of 3,192 shares (2,447 from Nakrani and 745 from Koladiya at INR 10 apiece) to Grover. Inc42 reported in March that Grover was supposed to pay INR 24,470 to Nakrani and INR 7,450 to Koladiya for the shares. However, Nakrani claimed the former MD had not paid for them.
Advocate Giriraj Subramanium, representing Grover, argued that Nakrani’s case misinterprets the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, asserting that the transfer of shares to Grover and his prolonged membership in BharatPe demonstrate Nakrani’s full compliance. Subramanium contended that the share transfer form was duly executed, and Grover’s name entered into the shareholders’ register, indicating the transfer of title to the shares.
Notably, Bhavik Koladiya, another BharatPe co-founder, has also sued Grover over a share transfer dispute. Koladiya, the largest shareholder, transferred his shares to Grover, Nakrani, Mansukhbhai Mohanbhai Nakrani, and other investors for approximately INR 88 Lakh. Allegedly, Grover has not paid the purchase consideration, and a separate legal battle ensues.
The ongoing saga surrounding Grover’s stake in BharatPe has seen disputes with Nakrani and Koladiya over unpaid share amounts. Additionally, BharatPe, earlier this year, approached the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) seeking to reclaim Grover’s restricted shareholding in the company. The conflict arises from Grover’s contentious departure from the fintech unicorn in March 2022, adding layers to the nearly two-year-long legal battle.
