Delhi High Court Refers Dispute Between BharatPe, Ashneer Grover To Arbitration

BharatPe alleged that Ashneer Grover disclosed confidential information on social media platforms

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court today referred a dispute between BharatPe, an online money transaction platform, and its former managing director Ashneer Grover to a sole arbitrator.

In its plea filed before the Delhi High Court, the fintech company alleged that Mr Grover disclosed confidential information relating to BharatPe on social media platforms, in violation of the employment agreement.

Before the issue reached Delhi High Court, responding to BharatPe’s notice to refer the matter to arbitration, Mr Grover agreed on the formation of an arbitral tribunal but disagreed on the name of sole arbitrator.

In an earlier round of litigation, the Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on Mr Grover over blatant violation of earlier orders and assurances made by him to not post on social media defamatory posts against BharatPe.

It had asked Ashneer Grover as well as the officials of the fintech company not to speak in a “unparliamentary” or “defamatory” manner against one another.

The Delhi High Court issued an order restraining Mr Grover from making defamatory and derogatory statements against BharatPe, its office bearers, or officials, and asked Mr Grover to remove his posts, including one calling the SBI Chairperson “petty”.

Ashneer Grover and his wife allegedly committed financial irregularities when they were at the helm of the fintech platform.

BharatPe terminated the services of Madhuri Jain, head of controls, after an internal probe found misappropriation of funds that ran into crores during her tenure.

The fintech platform claimed that Mr Grover, his wife, and their relatives were engaged in extensive misappropriation of company funds and grossly abused company money to fund their lavish lifestyles.

Mr Grover had already moved an arbitration plea with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre pleading that the investigation launched against him was illegal because it violated the shareholder agreement and articles of association.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Hindkesharistaff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *