BR Shetty Files $15 Billion Lawsuit Against Bank of Baroda Over Alleged Fraud
Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, widely known as BR Shetty, founder of UAE-based NMC Healthcare and UAE Exchange, has reportedly filed a $15 billion lawsuit against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants in the Bombay High Court. The lawsuit, reported on October 13, 2026, seeks approximately ₹1.44 lakh crore in damages over alleged financial irregularities, disputed personal guarantees and reputational losses connected to the collapse of his business empire.
Shetty has accused Bank of Baroda and certain current and former officials of facilitating transactions that allegedly enabled funds to be diverted from companies associated with NMC Healthcare. According to the lawsuit, the disputed transactions and lending arrangements contributed to substantial financial liabilities being attributed to him, including obligations that he claims were based on guarantees he never signed.
A central allegation concerns the bank’s handling of suspicious transactions. Shetty claims that more than 100 internal anti-money-laundering alerts were generated but subsequently closed without adequate action. He has also alleged that the bank failed to conduct appropriate checks on certain transactions and continued extending credit despite warning signs involving the financial position of the companies concerned.
The lawsuit further challenges the authenticity of certain personal guarantees and other documents allegedly used to establish his financial liability. Shetty claims that some signatures were forged and that the bank failed to verify the documents properly before pursuing recovery proceedings against him. These allegations remain unproven and will need to be examined through the legal process.
Shetty is seeking $5 billion in direct damages, another $5 billion in consequential damages for alleged financial losses and missed business opportunities, and a further $5 billion for reputational harm and damage to his business standing. The reported claim also seeks interest of 18% annually on the first $10 billion.
The dispute comes amid the continuing fallout from the collapse of NMC Healthcare, which was placed under administration in 2020 after serious financial irregularities came to light. The healthcare group, once one of the largest private healthcare providers in the Middle East, disclosed debts of approximately $6.6 billion, significantly exceeding earlier estimates.
Bank of Baroda has separately reached a settlement of approximately $600 million with administrators of NMC-related entities in proceedings in Abu Dhabi. The settlement, disclosed in July 2026, concerned claims linked to the bank’s dealings with the group and was reached without an admission of liability, according to reports concerning the proceedings.
Responding to reports of Shetty’s lawsuit, Bank of Baroda stated on October 14 that it had not yet been formally served with the court papers. The bank said it could not comment on untested allegations in the pleadings but would defend its interests firmly and take all necessary legal steps if formally served.
The bank has also stated that it is pursuing separate recovery proceedings against Shetty for outstanding dues of approximately ₹2,800 crore. It has indicated that the lawsuit would not create an immediate financial liability for the bank unless a relevant court order or accounting requirement arises.
The case could become a significant legal battle involving allegations of banking negligence, financial controls, disputed guarantees and responsibility for losses associated with the collapse of a major healthcare business. However, the claims made by Shetty have not been established by a court, and Bank of Baroda has not accepted liability in response to the reported lawsuit.
The proceedings are likely to draw attention to the role of banks in monitoring large corporate transactions and verifying financial guarantees, particularly when substantial lending exposures and allegations of money laundering are involved. The outcome will depend on the evidence presented, the responses of the defendants and the findings of the Bombay High Court.
