Bombay High Court Restrains Ex-Clippings CEO Vinayak Shrivastav From Dealing With Assets In ₹222 Crore Suit

The Bombay High Court has directed Vinayak Shrivastav, former CEO, co-founder, and largest shareholder of US-incorporated Clippings LLC, and seven others, comprising his family members and entities owned or controlled by him or his family, to disclose their assets and financial affairs within 10 days.

The court also restrained them from dealing with their assets in a suit alleging that ₹222.62 crore belonging to Clippings and its Indian subsidiary was diverted.

Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the receivers had promptly approached the Court after receiving the Nardello Memorandum to safeguard Clippings, its creditors and shareholders and that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case warranting limited ad interim relief.

"The Plaintiffs have, in my view, more than adequately made out a prima facie case and established that the balance of conveniences is in favour of granting the limited ad interim relief. The decisions in the case Ramjas Foundation, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu and Manjula & Ors, would not at this stage detain the Court from granting limited ad interim relief.", the Court said. 

According to the companies, Shrivastav approached Park View SPV III in April 2025 for a credit facility. A credit agreement dated October 1, 2025, provided for a $55 million credit line, against which $53.15 million was disbursed.

The plaintiffs alleged that documents supporting the agreement were forged and that $23.27 million was diverted instead of being used, in part, to repay an existing debt owed to Bluestone. Bluestone initiated proceedings against Clippings on March 26, 2026 and a subsequent forensic investigation reportedly traced payments to the defendants.

The defendants opposed interim relief, arguing that the plaintiffs had suppressed material documents, including a Note Purchase Agreement, emails concerning cancellation of stock options and a Release Deed.

Rejecting the suppression objection at the interim stage, the Court noted that the first Defendant had failed to specifically address the serious allegations that the Credit Agreement was forged and fabricated, despite raising a general defence of suppression.

The Court also considered the Nardello Memorandum, which reportedly identified payments aggregating $23.27 million from Clippings' accounts to certain defendants.

It observed that the material was sufficient to prima facie establish that company funds had reached the defendants, adding that “Clearly, the central player in all of this is Defendant No. 1.”

On the allegation of suppression, the Court noted that the plaintiffs were court appointed receivers acting to protect Clippings and its creditors and shareholders.

It observed, “Firstly, given the prima facie case made out against Defendant No. 1 of the various acts of omission and commission, at this stage, I view these documents with the utmost suspicion.”

The Court ultimately held that the receivers had approached it promptly after the forensic findings emerged and had made out a prima facie case for limited ad-interim relief.

Accordingly, the Court directed the defendants to file affidavits disclosing their assets and financial affairs within 10 days. It also restrained dealings with their assets, while permitting other Defendants to operate their bank accounts only in the normal course of business or for necessary daily expenses.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 25, 2026.

For the Plaintiffs: Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Rohaan Cama, Kyrus Modi, Prateek Katewa, Shailesh Korpe i/b Cygnus Legal 

For the Defendants: Janak Dwarkadas, Zal ndhyarujina, Senior Advocates a/w Waseem Pangaonkar, Nadiya S., Chirag Naik, Aditi Tiwari, Vaijayanti S., Arurima, Sachin Singh, Rohan Bhatia, i/b MZM Legal LLP