Dubai, UAE — In a landmark ruling, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court has directed BR Shetty, founder of the now-collapsed NMC Healthcare, to pay $45,997,554.59 (approximately $46 million) to State Bank of India (SBI), ruling that Shetty lied under oath and had indeed signed a personal guarantee for a loan.
What the Court Found
- The case centered on a $50 million loan extended to NMC Healthcare in December 2018, for which SBI claimed Shetty gave a personal guarantee.
- Shetty, during the trial, vehemently denied signing the guarantee or ever meeting SBI’s CEO who purportedly witnessed the signing.
- The judgment, delivered by Justice Andrew Moran on October 8, described Shetty’s defense as a “parade of lies,” calling his testimony “incoherent and nonsensical.”
- The court found that Shetty’s attempts to discredit the evidence—claiming forgery and that he never met the bank’s CEO—were evasive tactics to avoid liability.
- Photographic evidence, meeting reports, a contemporaneous email from Shetty acknowledging negotiations over a guarantee, and expert handwriting analysis all supported SBI’s case.
- Interest will accrue at 9 % per annum on the judgment sum until full repayment.
Background: NMC’s Collapse and Credit Exposure
NMC Healthcare was once among the UAE’s largest private hospital operators. In 2020, it collapsed after revelations of more than $4 billion in hidden debt. The collapse sparked multiple legal, regulatory, and creditor disputes across jurisdictions.
Following the collapse, SBI had issued demand notices to Shetty in April and May 2020. Shetty initially claimed he never received them. The legal proceedings dragged on, with service complications partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, until Shetty finally filed a defense in October 2022.
Implications & What Next
- This judgment strengthens SBI’s legal claims and may pave the path for enforcement actions in DIFC or other jurisdictions where Shetty or his assets are held.
- Shetty (or his legal counsel) may choose to appeal, challenging the court’s evaluation of his testimony or the admissibility of evidence.
- Other creditors of NMC could leverage this precedent in their own recovery efforts.
- The ruling throws more focus on how personal guarantees are documented and contested in cross-border lending disputes, especially involving high-risk, high-debt corporate structures.
