Delhi HC Scraps Of Bhavik Koladiya Suit Against Ashneer Grover After Settlement

The Delhi High Court on Friday disposed of a lawsuit filed by BharatPe founder Bhavik Koladiya against Ashneer Grover concerning unpaid shares, following a settlement between BharatPe and the Grovers.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the terms of the settlement, dated September 30, had been fulfilled by the Grovers. Although the lawsuit involved 18,189 shares, Koladiya settled the matter by receiving a transfer of 15,000 shares from Grover.

By the conclusion of the hearing, Koladiya’s counsel informed the court that the share certificate for the transferred shares had been issued.

Consequently, Justice Arora disposed of the suit, along with related applications and interim orders. The court clarified that there are no further obligations aside from the parties’ future responsibility to refrain from defaming one another.

Koladiya co-founded BharatPe in 2017 with Shashvat Nakrani. In 2018, they sought a chief executive, leading to Grover’s appointment. Reports from The Economic Times suggest that Koladiya, who was the largest shareholder, had to exit the company due to a past conviction in the U.S. for credit card fraud, which complicated discussions with potential investors.

Upon his resignation, Koladiya transferred his shares to Grover, Nakrani, and other early investors. He agreed to transfer 1,611 of his 2,900 shares (which later became 16,110 shares) to Grover under a December 3, 2022 agreement, with the transfer valued at approximately ₹88 lakh. Koladiya alleged that Grover failed to pay the purchase price.

Between February and early March 2022, Grover began publicly claiming ownership of the 16,110 shares, later stated to be 18,189 shares, and positioned himself as BharatPe’s largest shareholder. When Koladiya requested the return of his shares, Grover refused, prompting Koladiya to approach the High Court.

During the proceedings, Koladiya’s counsel filed an application to withdraw the suit against Grover and the others, citing the September 30 compromise as the basis for this decision. The court’s ruling marks a resolution to the dispute, allowing both parties to move forward without further legal entanglements.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International