In a matter before the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that a settlement agreement and release dated 19-12-2025 was invalid, null, and void due to coercion and duress, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted interim relief to the plaintiff by restraining the respondents from further implementation of the settlement agreement till the next date of hearing.
The matter concerned a conglomerate, the Bahwan CyberTek Group (BCT Group), comprising 44 entities across multiple jurisdictions, including 6 entities incorporated in Tamil Nadu. The recital in the impugned settlement agreement recorded that the plaintiff had caused a loss of approximately $76 Million to the BCT companies. The plaintiff referred to an email dated 18-12-2025 sent by him to an investment advisor regarding investment in 4 entities of the BCT Group. It was asserted that the impugned settlement agreement was executed under coercion and duress, a day after the said email.
Referring to the recital regarding the alleged losses and damages amounting to $76 Million attributed to him, the plaintiff submitted that, as a founder of the BCT Group, he would not part with his stakes merely on the basis of said recital in the absence of coercion or undue influence. The defendant responded by contending that the plaintiff had engaged in forum shopping and had initiated proceedings in the United States of America, as well as a complaint with the Dubai Police.
The Court stated that apart from the mention regarding losses made in the recital of the settlement agreement, no other particulars regarding such losses were present. It was found from the appendices to the settlement agreement that the BCT group comprised multiple entities and that the agreement did not, prima facie, indicate any basis for the plaintiff to part with his stake in these entities.
The Court noted that the jurisdiction clause in the settlement agreement conferred non-exclusive jurisdiction on courts in the UAE and that the agreement provided for difficult-to-reverse actions, such as the transfer of shares, termination of employment, and the waiver of post-employment benefits.
Thus, the Court held that prima facie a case warranting interim relief had been made out and restrained the respondents from further implementation of the settlement agreement till the next date of hearing.
The matter is now listed on 23-03-2026.
Appearances:
For Applicant – Mr. P.S. Raman (Sr. Adv), Mr. A.K. Sriram (Sr. Adv) for M/s. P. Giridharan Nitesh Jain
For Respondents – Mr. Satish Parasaran (Sr. Adv) for Mr. Vinod Kumar, Mr. Srinath Sridevan (Sr. Adv) for Mr. Vinod Kumar
