The Court directed Fortis to publish in all its advertisements part of its Risk Factor No 3, including the statement that that “If the plaintiff (Anil Nanda) is successful, the merger and incorporation which made EHIRCL a for-profit limited company in April and May 2000, respectively, could be annulled, as could our (Fortis) acquisition of EHIRCL.” The Court’s direction came in the wake of an application by Anil Nanda challenging a “huge” advertisement in an English daily on April 3, 2007, “wherein the name of Escorts has been extensively used”.

“Fortis is acting in collusion with its co-parties, including EHIRCL, and attempting to raise substantial funds by exploiting the name, goodwill and income of Escorts Heart Institute, all of which belong to charity,” Anil Nanda had submitted in an application filed through his lawyer P K Bansal.

He had further submitted in his application that Fortis was taking undue benefit of the fact of the pending case by seeking to create new grounds and equities worth approximately Rs 500 crore to defeat the rights of charity and the public at large. Fortis had countered that all the information regarding the pending litigation had been disclosed in the Red Herring prospectus submitted to Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). To this, Justice Mittal observed that it wasn’t enough and the matter must come in the advertisement in a manner “clearly discernible and legible to the public”.

She also made Fortis a party in the litigation while observing that its “presence before the court is necessary to enable an effectual and complete adjudication on the questions involved in the litigation”. The order was the result of apprehensions raised by Anil Nanda that Fortis, in collusion with EHIRC Ltd, was attempting to “thwart” the status quo order of the court by proposing the public issue on the ground that it was not a party to the suit.