Bank of Baroda faces NMC fraud trial, ADGM order 2026

Why Bank of Baroda is back in focus

Bank of Baroda (BoB), India’s second-largest public sector bank and majority owned by the Indian government, is facing fresh scrutiny over its overseas exposure linked to the collapse of NMC Health. The UAE-based private healthcare provider fell into administration in 2020 with liabilities cited at about US$1,000 million. NMC’s administrators, Alvarez & Marsal (A&M), have brought civil claims that are now set to be tested across multiple courts. For Indian investors, the matter is material less for day-to-day operations and more for its potential regulatory, reputational, and litigation-cost implications. The dispute also highlights how cross-border lending and compliance obligations can become central issues once a large borrower collapses.

NMC Health’s collapse and the claims being pursued

The administrators allege that NMC was the victim of serious fraud and misconduct that contributed to its downfall. BoB is one of three defendants in the main action, alongside NMC founder B.R. Shetty and former CEO Prasanth Manghat, who served as CEO from 2017 until the company’s collapse in 2020. The administrators’ case includes allegations that BoB acted fraudulently and negligently, and that it breached contractual and tortious obligations. The overall value of the claims is estimated to be at least US$1,000 million, with one reference placing the fraud case at US$1,400 million. The litigation is described as a civil recovery proceeding aimed at recovering creditors’ funds, focusing on alleged misstatements and irregular financing arrangements.

ADGM trial set for March 23, 2026

A key milestone is now on the calendar. A 16-week trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, 23 March 2026, in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) courts. The proceedings are expected to examine the role of banks, executives, and advisers in the period leading up to NMC’s collapse. BoB’s position as a defendant places its overseas operations and internal decision-making under close review in a high-profile forum. The case is also described as multi-jurisdictional, with parallel actions and rulings in other courts tied to the same collapse.

Abu Dhabi court ruling opens access to internal bank material

Separately, NMC Healthcare and its administrators secured a significant procedural win in the ADGM. According to Gulf News, the ruling allows them to access BoB’s internal reports on suspected suspicious transactions connected to their case against Shetty. The judge, Justice Sir Andrew Smith, held in a 26 November judgment that under the UAE’s 2025 anti-money laundering law, banks can share highly confidential material in civil court cases when a court order permits it. This is a notable point because suspicious transaction reporting is typically treated as tightly restricted compliance information.

What the ADGM order said and what it changes

The decision addressed three applications highlighted in the report. The court granted NMC’s Set Aside Application, meaning an earlier “June ban” will be lifted on terms to be decided. It also granted NMC’s Disclosure Application in principle, ordering BoB to search for and disclose suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and internal anti-money laundering (AML) documents, subject to detailed conditions. And it refused BoB’s application, with the court not accepting the bank’s attempt to extend secrecy protections over those internal reports. In practical terms, the ruling potentially expands the evidence base available to the administrators as they build their civil recovery case.

Indian lenders’ exposure and creditor actions around NMC

BoB was not the only Indian lender drawn into disputes connected to NMC. The bank is separately suing Shetty and NMC Health to recover around US$150 million. Other creditor actions cited include ICICI Bank, which in February 2025 obtained a judgment against Shetty for US$106.29 million. These claims underline the scale of alleged obligations that creditors say remained unresolved after the collapse.

DIFC ruling involving State Bank of India

Another development referenced in the broader legal saga came from the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) court. In October, the DIFC court ordered Shetty to pay about US$16 million to State Bank of India after finding he repeatedly lied under oath about signing a personal guarantee for a US$10 million loan. While this is separate from the ADGM proceedings involving BoB, it illustrates how creditor-related disputes have continued to move through different jurisdictions, often centered on guarantees and pre-collapse financing.

New York court dismisses Shetty’s lawsuit against BoB and others

In the United States, a New York Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Shetty and Neopharma LLC seeking damages of US$1,000 million against BoB, Credit Europe Bank, and audit firms including Ernst & Young LLP and Ernst & Young Middle East, among others. Justice Cohen dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding New York was not an appropriate venue. The presence of a single BoB branch in New York was described as insufficient to overcome the plaintiffs’ lack of residency in the forum. The dismissal was without prejudice and subject to a condition that the corporate defendants accept service of process in their home jurisdictions if the plaintiffs reassert the claims elsewhere.

Market impact: what investors can reasonably track

The core market relevance for BoB is not a direct earnings number in the public reports provided, but the litigation’s scope and the compliance disclosure angle. The ADGM disclosure order increases the chance that internal AML and STR-related documentation becomes part of civil court scrutiny, albeit under conditions set by the court. The scheduled March 2026 trial also creates a defined timeline that may drive periodic news flow. Separately, the web of creditor judgments and recovery suits shows how the NMC collapse continues to trigger legal outcomes years later. For shareholders, the practical watchpoints are further court orders, any settlement signals that are formally disclosed, and any regulatory or reputational consequences linked to overseas operations, as referenced in the proceeding’s description.

Key facts and figures at a glance

Conclusion: a longer legal timeline, with sharper disclosure risks

BoB is entering a period where legal proceedings linked to NMC’s 2020 collapse are likely to intensify rather than fade. The ADGM court has set a March 2026 trial, and it has also allowed the administrators to pursue disclosure of sensitive internal AML-related material under the UAE’s 2025 legal framework. At the same time, creditor disputes in the DIFC and a forum-based dismissal in New York show how the fight has spread across jurisdictions. The next confirmed milestones are the detailed conditions for disclosure in ADGM and the start of the 16-week trial in Abu Dhabi.