Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority vs Matrix Pharmacorp Private Limited on 16 March, 2026
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).12993-12994/2025
RAS AL KHAIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MATRIX PHARMACORP PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 314889/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA
No.254551/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 294780/2025
– CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 254549/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 254550/2025 -
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA
No.254544/2025 - STAY APPLICATION
WITH
C.A. No. 12561-12566/2025 (XVII-B)
IA No. 314907/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 294787/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 256723/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 256720/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 256722/2025 - STAY APPLICATION
SLP(C) No. 27277-27279/2025 (XII-A)
IA No. 11895/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 297354/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 294590/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 240366/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 240364/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE
LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
SLP(C) No. 35892/2025 (XII-A)
IA No. 321803/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 8901/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.321801/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 321804/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE
LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
Date : 16-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Signature Not Verified
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.03.19
15:46:15 IST
Reason: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Rishab Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Kapur, AOR
1
Mr. Siddharth Seem, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Indranil Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Adv.
Ms. Saloni Kapadia, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Karan Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Jeezan Riyaz, Adv.
Mr. Akshit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Shubh Sahai, Adv.
Mr. Harshit, Adv.
Ms. Anshula Lahoriya, Adv.
Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Adv.
M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR
Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Adv.
Ms. Sanya Sud, AOR
Mr. Svs Ravi Kiran, Adv.
Mr. Pradyuman Kaistha, Adv.
Ms. Sana Jain, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sahil Raveen, AOR
Ms. Akhila Palem, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Dhanya S. Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, AOR
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR
Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Bhushan, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Js George, Adv.
Ms. Vartika Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Bagdi, Adv.
Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The instant controversy revolves around the appellant’s/petitioner’s claim for execution of a money decree for INR 543,92,09,892, passed by the Ras Al-Khaimah Court at first instance on 02.02.2022, which is stated to have been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The decretal amount is AED 267,941,374. It seems that the decree was passed against Nimmagadda Prasad. At this stage, it is not necessary to take notice of the defence plea taken by the respondents against the validity and/or executability of the subject decree. Suffice to mention that on 15.10.2025, this Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo re: transfer or creation of third-party rights in respect of assets of respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Companies, as well as the personal assets of Mr. Nimmagadda Prasad, his daughter Shwathi Gunupati Reddy and his son- in-law Venkata Pranav Reddy Gunupati.
2. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed by respondent no.5 seeking permission of this Court to furnish a security comprising INR 600 crores to the Registry of this Court. This was followed by an order passed by this Court on 12.02.2026, which reads as follows:
“1. Issue notice on IA No.11895/2026.
2. Arguments from the appellants/petitioners side have been heard in the main case as well as in the Interlocutory Application. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the respondents seeks and is granted a week’s time to have instructions.
3. Heard in part.
4. List on 25.02.2026 as first matter.”
3. Thereafter, on 25.02.2026, the respondents offered three assets as security. This fact was duly recorded in our order dated 3 25.02.2026, which reads as follows:
“1. In deference to the previous order dated 12.02.2026, respondent no.5 in SLP(C) Nos.27277-27279/2025 has filed an affidavit, which is taken on record. In a purported attempt to honour the observations, which this Court proposed to issue on the previous date re: furnishing a security comprising INR 600 crores with the Registry of this Court, the deponent – respondent no.5 has offered the following three assets:
(a) The shares and assets allegedly valuing INR 212 crores, which have been attached to the Commercial Courts vide orders dated 05.09.2023 and 06.10.2023.
(b) Medchal Land measuring 37 acres situated at Devarayamjal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District, Telangana, which was earlier owned by the deponent but has now been transferred in the name of his daughter through a registered Gift Deed No.922/2022. This land, according to the deponent, at present has a value of INR 408 crores.
(c) Additional cash security of INR 125 crores.
2. As regards the first component of the security, namely, shares and other assets attached by the Commercial Courts, we are not inclined to accept the same. Faced with this, Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel, representing respondent no.5, seeks more time to submit an alternative proposal. The request is accepted.
3. As regard to 37 acres property, known as Medchal Land, let the original title deeds thereof be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an affidavit of undertaking that the subject land is free from all encumbrances except that it was earlier attached by the Directorate of Enforcement and was released subject to furnishing of an indemnity bond and that this land was further subject to an ad interim injunction that has been granted by the Civil Court on 19.10.2023. In this vein, respondent no.5 shall be obligated to furnish an affidavit along with an undertaking to the effect that the requisite indemnity bond has been furnished, thereby complying with the release order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
4. Insofar as the third part of the security, namely, additional cash security of INR 125 crores, is concerned, Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, states that a sum of INR 125 4 crore shall be entrusted to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within one week from today.
5. On doing so, the Registry is directed to keep that amount in the Uco Bank of the Supreme Court in a high- interest-bearing FDR initially for a period of six months with an auto-renewal facility.
6. It goes without saying that the ad interim arrangement regarding the security to be furnished by the respondent(s), to which the petitioner(s) have no objection, shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
7. For the purpose of further instructions, list on 11.03.2026.”
4. As of now, the respondents have deposited a cash security of Rs. 225 crores with the Registry of this Court. In addition, title deeds of 37 acres of land, mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order dated 25.02.2026, have also been deposited.
5. An apprehension is expressed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the land measuring 37 acres, referred to above, is attached under PMLA and is, thus, not free from encumbrances. On the other hand, Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel, states that the attachment has been vacated and the land is free from encumbrances.
6. Be that as it may, we declare in this order that the said land is and shall remain free from encumbrance for the purpose of security in favour of the appellant/petitioner.
7. Having done so, we now advert to our order dated 11.03.2026, when we impressed upon the parties to explore resolution through mediation, which the respondents’ side graciously agreed to, and time was accorded to the appellant’s/petitioner’s side to seek instructions.
5
8. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellant(s)/petitioner(s), submit that they are also willing to engage in mediation, for which they request that this be time-bound and that, until then, the interim order passed by this Court on 15.10.2025 should continue to be in effect.
9. We have considered the submissions in this regard.
10. As jointly agreed, we request Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, former Chief Justice of India, to act as the sole Mediator between the parties. We further request Hon’ble Mr Justice Uday Umesh Lalit to permit the parties to join mediation proceedings in hybrid mode, mainly in-person and or online, as the case may be. Learned mediator shall fix his honorarium in consultation with the parties.
11. In order to facilitate the respondents to run their day-to-day business, the order dated 15.10.2025 is modified/clarified to the extent that the respondents may operate their assets in the normal course of business. However, the immovable assets shall not be disposed of without the leave of this Court.
12. We have no reason to doubt that the parties shall extend full cooperation to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, not only to achieve a successful resolution but also to conclude the mediation proceedings at the earliest.
13. We leave it to the wisdom of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit to decide as to which respondents are required to be associated for the purpose of successful mediation. We have no reason to doubt that such respondents, including those initially 6 impleaded and/or those who have sought their subsequent impleadment, will also extend full cooperation to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, as and when required, so that the matter can be amicably resolved.
14. During the pendency of mediation proceedings, the parties shall not take any precipitative or coercive action against each other.
15. Post the matter on 11.05.2026.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
7