- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ by Kavita Krishnan ]Fortis Healthcare on Monday said that it is exploring legal means in response to the Supreme Court’s order last week which held the company guilty of contempt.In an exchange filing, Fortis said: “The company is currently evaluating the judgement and exploring legal means to address it in an expeditious manner, keeping in mind the best interest of all...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Fortis Healthcare on Monday said that it is exploring legal means in response to the Supreme Court’s order last week which held the company guilty of contempt.
In an exchange filing, Fortis said: “The company is currently evaluating the judgement and exploring legal means to address it in an expeditious manner, keeping in mind the best interest of all our stakeholders.”
“Separately, we have been advised that the open offer made by IHH Healthcare Berhad (‘IHH’) to the public shareholders of Fortis for the acquisition of shareholding of up to 26% at a price of Rs. 170 per share continues to remain in abeyance and would be adjudicated upon in conjunction with the hearing of the contempt petition,” it said.
The company’s response comes after last week’s Supreme Court ruling in which it held Fortis’ former promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh guilty of contempt and asked them to deposit Rs. 1,175 crore each.
The Court had sought an enquiry into finalization of the acquisition of healthcare assets from the Religare Health Trust (RHT) Health Trust by the company.
“The company remains firm that these transactions were, at all times, conducted in a fair and transparent manner after obtaining all relevant regulatory, shareholder and corporate approvals and only after making all due disclosures to public shareholders of the Company and to the regulatory authorities, in a timely manner,” Fortis said.
The court’s order came in response to Japanese Pharma firm Daiichi Sankyo’s petition to implement the Rs. 3,500 crore arbitration award against Singh brothers, who had allegedly concealed information related to the extent of regulatory problems at Ranbaxy.
IHH, via Northern TK Venture Pte, had last November completed the purchase of 31.1% stake in Fortis for Rs. 4,000 crore.