Coreintegra Consulting Services Limited Group Award Remains Pending

Coreintegra Consulting Services Limited disclosed that group company Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Private Limited is pursuing enforcement of a Rs 6.47 crore arbitral award against Dhani Loans and Services Limited. The award, dated August 16, 2024, also grants 6% annual interest from July 1, 2022 and arbitration costs, while enforcement and Dhani’s challenge remain pending before the Delhi High Court.

What must Dhani pay under the Coreintegra group company award?

Dhani must pay Eureka Rs 6.47 crore, interest at 6% a year from July 1, 2022 until payment, and arbitration costs under the August 16, 2024 award. Retired Justice Asha Menon, acting as sole arbitrator at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, or DIAC, issued the award in Case Ref. No. DIAC/6012/02-23.

The Rs 6.47 crore principal related to invoices Eureka raised for call-centre and support services supplied from January 2022 to April 1, 2022. Eureka said those invoices, described in the disclosure as Rs 6.46 crore, remained unpaid. The award specifies the principal at Rs 6.47 crore, while the disclosure does not quantify the separate arbitration costs.

The arbitrator rejected Dhani’s defence that Eureka had not met performance standards. Interest begins on July 1, 2022, more than two years before the August 16, 2024 award, so the amount due under the award continues to rise until payment if the award remains enforceable.

How did the dispute between Eureka and Dhani arise?

The dispute arose from Eureka’s provision of call-centre and support services under a master service agreement dated June 16, 2021 and an addendum dated August 11, 2021. The master service agreement was effective from January 6, 2020, and Eureka provided the services through centres in Mumbai and Chennai.

Dhani terminated the agreement with effect from April 2, 2022. Eureka’s unpaid invoices cover January 2022 through April 1, 2022, which places the claimed services before the stated termination date. The disclosure does not identify a claim for services after April 2, 2022.

Eureka initiated arbitration seeking recovery of the invoices and interest after Dhani contested its liability. Arbitration is a process in which an arbitrator determines a contractual dispute, while enforcement is the court procedure through which a party seeks compliance with an arbitral award. Recovery of the principal, interest and costs depends on the Delhi High Court enforcement process and the outcome of Dhani’s challenge.

Where does the Coreintegra group award enforcement stand?

Eureka’s award-enforcement case remains pending in the Delhi High Court as OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 62/2025. On March 12, 2025, the court issued notice to Dhani, directed Dhani to file an affidavit of assets, and listed the matter with Dhani’s award challenge.

An affidavit of assets is a statement identifying assets that can be relevant to enforcing a monetary award. The disclosure does not state the value, location or availability of Dhani assets, and it does not report that Eureka has received the Rs 6.47 crore principal, interest or costs.

Dhani’s challenge is registered as OMP (COMM.) 555/2024. The prospectus states that notice had not yet been issued in that challenge as of its date, and that the matter remained pending. The enforcement application seeks implementation of the award, whereas the challenge contests the August 16, 2024 decision.

Why is the Eureka-Dhani claim material under Coreintegra’s policy?

The Rs 6.47 crore award exceeds the lowest monetary threshold in Coreintegra’s materiality policy for litigation. Coreintegra’s board adopted the policy on August 9, 2025 for litigation involving the company, its directors, promoters, subsidiary and group companies, which the disclosure collectively calls Relevant Parties.

The policy applies when a quantifiable claim exceeds the lower of three measures: 2% of latest annual restated consolidated turnover, or Rs 10.30 crore; 2% of net worth, or Rs 54.81 lakh; and 5% of the three-year average absolute profit or loss after tax, or Rs 21.51 lakh. The Rs 21.51 lakh measure is the lowest disclosed benchmark, and the Rs 6.47 crore award is more than 30 times that amount.

The policy also covers matters where a decision in one case could affect similar cases, as well as unquantifiable matters that may materially affect business, operations, performance, prospects, financial position or reputation. The Eureka-Dhani proceeding is listed as material litigation filed by a subsidiary or group company rather than litigation filed directly by Coreintegra.

How does this case differ from Coreintegra’s own litigation disclosures?

Coreintegra stated that, as of the Red Herring Prospectus date, it had no outstanding criminal proceedings against or initiated by the company, no pending material litigation against it, and no material litigation initiated by it. Those statements concern Coreintegra itself and are separate from disclosures concerning group companies, promoters, directors and tax proceedings.

Eureka is separately named in a criminal cheque-dishonour complaint filed on August 16, 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. The complaint concerns a Rs 13.72 lakh cheque, and Eureka and its managing director, Gaurav Bali, deny that the company or Bali issued it or held an account with the concerned bank; the matter remained pending.

Coreintegra also disclosed Rs 6.90 crore of trade payables as of March 31, 2026, with a creditor treated as material above Rs 34.49 lakh. One material creditor was owed Rs 40.10 lakh. That creditor benchmark is distinct from the August 9, 2025 litigation materiality policy and does not change the amount awarded to Eureka.

Conclusion

The disclosure shows that Eureka obtained an award directing Dhani to pay Rs 6.47 crore after the sole arbitrator rejected Dhani’s performance-standard defence. The award also carries 6% annual interest from July 1, 2022 and arbitration costs, but the disclosed proceedings do not establish that Eureka has recovered any amount.

The next disclosed developments are Dhani’s asset affidavit in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 62/2025 and progress in OMP (COMM.) 555/2024, its challenge to the award. The Delhi High Court’s March 12, 2025 order linked the enforcement matter with the challenge, while notice in the challenge had not yet been issued as of the prospectus date.