Delhi High Court Orders Perjury Complaint Against Walmark Officials In Fortis Arbitration Case

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint for perjury against two officials of Walmark Holdings Limited for making false statements and swearing affidavits before the court in an arbitration-related dispute with Fortis Healthcare Limited.

The court held that this was a fit case to invoke its powers under the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statements and swearing affidavits.

“I am of the prima facie view that a fit case has been made out on behalf of Fortis for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 340 of CrPC (Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in respect of the conduct of the non-applicants no.3 and 4.”

The case concerned a draft term sheet dated December 6, 2017. Walmark relied on the document while seeking interim reliefs against Fortis in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking interim reliefs in the dispute.

Fortis maintained that the term sheet was never executed by it. The court noted that when Walmark produced the document before other forums in 2018, it did not bear the signature of Fortis' then chief executive officer, Bhavdeep Singh.

A version bearing his signature surfaced for the first time in a complaint dated October 3, 2018, filed by Walmark before SEBI, the National Stock Exchange, and the Bombay Stock Exchange. In the same complaint, Walmark admitted that Bhavdeep Singh was not present on the date the term sheet was said to have been executed.

Despite this, Walmark later approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim reliefs in the arbitration proceedings. It sought, among other things, a direction for security of Rs 490 crore.

The petition relied on the same term sheet and certain side letters. Fortis questioned the authenticity of these documents. It alleged that the signature of its former CEO on the term sheet was forged. It also said that the side letters were signed by a promoter who was never authorised to do so.

One of the side letters did not even mention a date of execution. Walmark withdrew its Section 9 petition in 2020. Fortis then sought criminal action against Walmark's officials.

While dealing with Fortis' application, the court noted that a separate judgment in a connected suit had already declared the term sheet to be “non-est and void.” The suit had been decreed in favour of Fortis.

The court also noted that the two officials against whom action was sought had failed to file any reply or appear before the court, despite service of notice.

The court observed that they “could not have been unmindful of the consequences of making statements and/ or falsely swearing affidavit before this Court, which prima facie appear to be false to their knowledge.”

The High Court held that a case had been made out for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within four weeks.

All records were directed to be transmitted for further action in accordance with law.

For Petitioner: None

For Respondent Advocates H.S. Chandhoke and Saleem Hasan (for Respondent/Fortis);