News and developments

Press Releases

Saraf and Partners Welcomes Mr. Gauhar Mirza as Partner in Disputes Practice

Saraf and Partners is pleased to share that Mr. Gauhar Mirza has joined the firm as a Partner in its Dispute Resolution Practice, further strengthening the firm’s capabilities in Arbitration, Litigation, and Technology sector. With over 15 years of experience, Mr. Mirza has represented leading corporations, public sector undertakings, and global technology giants in high-stakes disputes before the Supreme Court, High Courts, arbitral tribunals, and other judicial forums. His practice spans domestic and international arbitration, shareholders’ disputes, construction and infrastructure matters, policy and intermediary liability advisory, and white-collar crime-related issues. Mr. Mirza has been consistently recognised for his professional excellence, including being named among the ALB Asia Super 50 Disputes Lawyers (2024), a “Future Star” in Construction by Benchmark Litigation, and Disputes Lawyer of the Year (2024) by INBA. Welcoming him to the firm, Mr. Mohit Saraf, Founder and Managing Partner at Saraf and Partners, said: “Gauhar’s expertise, courtroom experience, and ability to develop and execute legal strategies in corporate disputes make him a valuable addition to our team. His proven track record in both arbitration and litigation, combined with his experience advising global technology companies and public sector undertakings, will further strengthen our dispute resolution offering to our clients.” Commenting on his appointment, Mr. Gauhar Mirza said: “Joining Saraf and Partners truly feels like coming back home. Early in my career, I had the privilege of working closely with Mohit Saraf and learning invaluable lessons that have shaped my professional journey. Saraf and Partners’ dynamic growth, collaborative culture, and focus on delivering practical, business-oriented solutions to clients resonate deeply with my own approach to law. To now return and be part of the firm’s remarkable growth story is both exciting and deeply meaningful. I look forward to contributing to our shared vision and expanding the reach of its disputes practice both domestically and internationally.”
14 August 2025
Press Releases

Saraf and Partners acts on ICRA Limited’s acquisition of Fintellix India Private Limited

ICRA Limited, an affiliate of Moody’s, has entered into definitive agreements for the acquisition of 100% shareholding in Fintellix India Private Limited (“Fintellix”), from LFG Services Mauritius Holdings and G2 Acquisition Inc., for a consideration of USD 26 million (INR 225 Crores). The Sellers are part of the Stellex Capital Management group, a US based private equity firm. Fintellix, a Bengaluru based product-led company, specializes in risk, supervisory, and data analytics solutions, offered on its proprietary data platform. Fintellix enables global financial sector entities to meet regulatory requirements while efficiently managing data and providing superior analytics. Saraf and Partners acted for ICRA Limited on all aspects of the deal, including legal due diligence and structuring, as well as the drafting negotiation and finalization of the definitive agreements. The transaction team was led by Senior Partner, Vaibhav Kakkar, and Partners, Snigdhaneel Satpathy and Debarpan Ghosh. Samvad Partners acted for the selling shareholders. ICRA Limited is one of India’s leading credit rating agencies, and along with its subsidiaries is a preferred partner in providing best in class and independent research and analytics solutions. ICRA’s shares are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange and the international credit rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is ICRA’s largest shareholder. The acquisition of Fintellix will strengthen the ICRA Group’s portfolio of credit risk assessment and monitoring tools by adding risk reporting capabilities to its existing solutions. ICRA’s existing portfolio includes credit risk software solutions, early warning systems (EWS), and asset classification tools. Deal Value: USD 26 million Signing Date: June 12, 2025 For any further information, please contact: Sanya Sud Corporate Communications Executive, Saraf and Partners Mobile: +91 9958677011
16 June 2025

FUND ME IF YOU CAN: THE WORLD OF ARBITRATION FINANCING

Arbitration has become the preferred mode of dispute resolution in commercial disputes due to its efficiency, confidentiality, and party autonomy. However, arbitration proceedings, often involving high-value and complex commercial disputes, can be significantly expensive. Legal costs, tribunal fees, expert witness expenses, and administrative charges frequently deter financially constrained parties from pursuing their claims. To address this challenge, Third-Party Funding (TPF) has emerged as a viable financing model, allowing parties with meritorious claims to secure external funding in exchange for a share in the arbitration award or settlement. While TPF is widely accepted in international arbitration[1], its recognition in India is evolving. This article examines the concept of TPF, its legal status in India, the approach of foreign jurisdictions, and the potential roadmap for India to regulate and facilitate TPF in arbitration. What is TPF? The global landscape of dispute resolution has undergone a significant transformation over the past few decades, marked by a shift from traditional court litigation to more flexible and commercially viable mechanisms like arbitration. Once perceived as a private, elite alternative, arbitration is now widely accepted as a mainstream mode of adjudication – one where, quite unconventionally, adjudicators are paid by the parties themselves. This evolving mindset reflects a broader openness towards innovation in dispute resolution, paving the way for allied concepts like TPF. As parties become more cost-conscious and outcome-driven, TPF has emerged as a pragmatic solution that democratizes access to justice and aligns with the commercial realities of modern disputes. TPF refers to a contractual arrangement where an external financier – typically a specialized litigation or arbitration funder – provides financial assistance to a claimant in an arbitration proceeding in return for a portion of the compensation if the case succeeds.[2] Simply put, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement bears all costs of contesting or defending the arbitration proceedings. These funding arrangements can take different forms. In some cases, the funder covers all arbitration-related expenses, including legal counsel fees, tribunal fees, and expert witness costs, under a full funding model.[3] Alternatively, in a partial funding arrangement, the funder may cover only specific arbitration costs, such as tribunal fees or expert witness expenses. Another common model is portfolio funding, where a funder finances multiple arbitration claims of a single entity, thereby diversifying risk.[4] TPF offers several advantages, making it an attractive option in arbitration. It allows financially weaker claimants to pursue legitimate claims without being hindered by excessive costs, thereby improving access to justice. It also enables businesses to mitigate risk, as they do not have to bear the financial burden of arbitration proceedings upfront. Additionally, companies can manage their cash flow more efficiently by allocating their resources to operations instead of legal battles.[5] TPF is often misunderstood as a tool designed solely to assist impecunious parties in pursuing arbitration. However, its utility extends far beyond that narrow lens. In today’s commercially driven environment, even financially sound entities view TPF as a strategic financial tool – one that enables them to ring-fence the costs of arbitration and avoid significant hits to their profit and loss statements or cash flow. By outsourcing the financial risk of a dispute, companies can maintain healthier balance sheets while still pursuing meritorious claims or defences. This shift in perspective highlights that TPF is as much about financial efficiency and risk management as it is about access to justice. TPF in foreign jurisdictions Several jurisdictions have proactively regulated TPF in arbitration to promote transparency and mitigate ethical concerns. Singapore and Hong Kong have been at the forefront of introducing legislative frameworks to govern TPF in arbitration.[6] In Singapore, the Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 2017 legalized TPF in international arbitration. The legislation imposes eligibility criteria for funders and mandates disclosure of TPF arrangements to arbitral tribunals to prevent conflicts of interest. Further, Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Law Society of Singapore have issued separate guidelines on TPF, aiming to create a fair and transparent mechanism. The guidelines require disclosure of TPF to prevent conflicts and maintain arbitrators’ impartiality, and to define the rights and obligations of third-party financiers. The recently enacted SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 require parties to disclose third-party funders, report TPF agreement changes, and provide information requested by the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, TPF agreements must not create conflicts of interest with any arbitral tribunal member.[7] SIAC also introduced provisions in the Singapore Investment Arbitration Rules, 2017, adopting and acknowledging TPF arrangements.[8] Similarly, Hong Kong enacted the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third-Party Funding) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, allowing TPF in arbitration. Like Singapore, Hong Kong’s framework mandates disclosure requirements to ensure transparency. In effect, Hong Kong permits TPF for arbitration proceedings, subject to the condition that funding shall not by a lawyer acting for a party to arbitration.[9] The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre has also enacted detailed provisions relating to the obligation to disclose any TPF arrangements entered by the parties.[10] In contrast, the United Kingdom follows a self-regulatory approach through the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF). While TPF is widely used in the UK, funders must adhere to ALF’s Code of Conduct, which ensures ethical compliance and financial stability. The English courts have consistently upheld the validity of TPF agreements, provided they are fair and do not undermine the integrity of the proceedings. One noteworthy judicial pronouncement was in Arkin v. Borchard Lines Ltd.[11], wherein the English Court of Appeal established that funders could be held liable for adverse costs up to the amount they invested, creating a balanced system. Further, in Excalibur Ventures LLC v. Texas Keystone Inc[12], funders were held to be liable for indemnity costs, emphasising that their involvement necessarily brings about shared financial risks. Similarly, the decision in Essar Oilfield Services Ltd v. Norscot Rig Management Pvt. Ltd.[13] reaffirmed the idea that funders should also be accountable for costs, even in arbitration settings. Crucially, Excalibur set the wheels of judicial interest in TPF in motion, with Lord Justice Tomlinson’s observation that: “Third party funding is a feature of modern litigation.” Australia has been another early adopter of TPF, particularly in class action litigation and arbitration. The Australian courts have upheld TPF agreements so long as they are not unconscionable or exploitative. In Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v. Fostif Pty Ltd.[14], the High Court of Australia ruled that TPF is permissible and does not interfere with the administration of justice. Unlike Singapore and Hong Kong, Australia does not have a statutory regulatory framework for TPF, instead it relies on judicial supervision to prevent abuse.[15] Position in India India does not have a statutory framework regulating TPF in arbitration. However, Indian courts have historically acknowledged the validity of TPF in civil litigation. One of the earliest cases recognizing TPF was Ganga Ram v. Devi Das[16], where the Privy Council upheld TPF agreements, stating that such arrangements were not per se illegal. Similarly, in Re: G. A. Senior Advocate[17], the Supreme Court ruled that while lawyers cannot fund litigation due to ethical concerns, non-lawyer third parties can. More recently, in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji[18], the Supreme Court clarified that TPF is not barred under Indian law, provided the funder is not a practicing advocate. While these rulings pertain primarily to civil litigation, their rationale can be extended to arbitration. Given that arbitration is a contractual and party-driven process, funding arrangements should be enforceable if they do not contravene public policy. However, India still lacks specific guidelines or legislation governing TPF in arbitration, creating legal uncertainties regarding its scope and implementation. One of the concerns surrounding TPF is its connection to champerty and maintenance – doctrines originating from English common law that prohibited third parties from funding litigation for profit. However, Indian courts have taken a pragmatic approach, holding that TPF is not invalid unless the agreement is extortionate or unfair. In Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mukherjee[19], the Privy Council acknowledged that champertous agreements are not inherently illegal unless they are against public policy. The High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India[20] in 2017, and the Vishwanathan Committee Report[21] in 2024 have both discussed the evolution of TPF agreements across the globe from increasing non-reliance on doctrines of maintenance and champerty in common law jurisdictions. These reports highlight arbitrator non-biasness and the importance of establishing rules to disclose any prior relation or connection of the arbitrator with that of the arbitration funding party. The Vishwanathan Committee Report even recommends insertion of a new section in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Indian Arbitration Act) mandating disclosure of details of the funding party to the arbitral tribunal.[22] Further, it recommends amending Explanation 2 in the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Arbitration Act to state that “affiliate” includes all companies in a group, including the parent company, and any person funding arbitration costs for a party. This ensures arbitrators consider their relationships with third-party funders when declaring independence or impartiality. A significant development in Indian jurisprudence is the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited v. SBS Holdings[23] wherein the court addressed whether a third-party funder, not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, could be held liable for adverse cost awards. It held that funders who are not parties to the arbitration agreement cannot be saddled with such liabilities, emphasizing the importance of party autonomy in arbitration. This decision underscores the judiciary’s recognition of TPF’s role in facilitating access to justice while delineating the boundaries of funders’ liabilities. Despite the growing relevance of TPF in arbitration and its recognition in judicial pronouncements, the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (Draft Bill) remains conspicuously silent on the subject. This omission is particularly striking given that the Vishwanathan Committee expressly recommended the inclusion of provisions to regulate TPF within the Indian Arbitration Act. The disconnect between the judiciary’s evolving stance, expert committee recommendations, and the Draft Bill underscores a missed opportunity to provide much-needed clarity and structure to a mechanism that is increasingly shaping access to justice in commercial disputes. One key issue is whether parties should be required to disclose TPF arrangements to the tribunal to ensure transparency. Another concern is the degree of control funders may exert over the arbitral proceedings, which could lead to conflicts of interest. Additionally, there is no clarity on adverse costs liability – if a claimant loses the arbitration, it remains uncertain whether the funder or the claimant would be liable for the adverse cost award. These gaps highlight the need for legislative clarity on the role of TPF in Indian arbitration. Road Ahead Given India’s ambition to become a global arbitration hub, a clear regulatory framework for TPF is necessary. Legislative recognition of TPF in arbitration would provide clarity on the rights and obligations of funders, claimants, and tribunals. Questions of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest, enforceability of cost or adverse award orders against third parties, and the ambit of funder liability will all need to be addressed. As the funding landscape evolves, these concerns must be anticipated and resolved to ensure a balanced and transparent arbitral framework. For TPF to function effectively within the Indian arbitral framework, ensuring arbitrator impartiality and robust disclosure obligations is paramount. The presence of a funder introduces additional relationships and potential conflicts that must be transparently disclosed at the outset. Statutory safeguards mandating disclosure of any ties – direct or indirect – between arbitrators and funders are essential to preserving the integrity of the proceedings and maintaining party confidence in the arbitral process. India could also consider establishing ethical and financial standards for funders, similar to the Singaporean model, where funders must meet eligibility criteria to operate. This would ensure that only credible and financially stable entities engage in TPF. Another critical aspect is defining liability for adverse costs – it should be clear whether the claimant or the funder bears the financial burden if the case is unsuccessful. In the evolving landscape of TPF in arbitration, there is a pressing need to revisit the manner in which arbitration clauses are drafted in commercial agreements. Traditionally treated as boilerplate, arbitration clauses often fail to address critical procedural and financial considerations – including the prospect of external funding. By proactively incorporating provisions that acknowledge or regulate the use of TPF, parties can ensure clarity and consensus at the outset of their contractual relationship. This not only facilitates procedural efficiency but also ensures that parties are ad idem on how potential disputes will be financed, reducing the scope for future contention and aligning expectations from the very inception of the agreement. By omitting third-party funding from the Draft Arbitration Bill, 2024, India has not only missed the chance to provide it with substantive statutory recognition but has also delayed the development of a much-needed procedural framework. As the funding landscape grows, crafting clear, well-defined rules to regulate disclosures, conflicts, and funder participation will be critical to instilling confidence among investors and funders and positioning India as a credible arbitration hub. Concluding Remarks TPF has the potential to transform arbitration in India by enhancing access to justice and improving financial sustainability for claimants. With institutions like SIAC and HKIAC embracing TPF and addressing its challenges through symposiums and deliberations, and the International Council for Commercial Arbitration establishing a commission on TPF in international arbitration[24], it is crucial for India to resolve the uncertainties surrounding TPF. Indian arbitral institutions such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration and Delhi International Arbitration Centre must take the lead in framing clear, practical guidelines that can set the tone for a robust and transparent funding ecosystem. Co-authored by our Partner, Sudeshna Guha Roy and Associate, Treenok Guha. [1] Dr. Dean Lewis, “Jurisdiction guide to third part funding in international arbitration”, Pinsent Masons, 07 May 2021, available at: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/third-party-funding-international-arbitration [2] William Park and Catherine A. Rogers, “Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: The ICCA Queen Mary Task Force”, No. 42-2014, Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series (2014). [3] Bourgeois Arnaud, “Third-Party Funding”, Jus Mundi, 14 October 2024, available at: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-third-party-funding [4] Anant Garg and Sreejita Mitra, “Regulating Third Party Funding in Arbitration in the Indian Context”, Bar and Bench, 13 December 2022, available at: https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/regulating-third-party-funding-in-arbitration-in-the-indian-context [5] Gokul Holani, “Third Party Funding in Arbitration: Indian Legal Perspective”, Delhi Law Review, Vol. VI, Manupatra, 2019, available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/pdf/133005e4-8f89-4437-bfa0-9b68361fff0e.pdf [6] Riffat Soin, “Third-Party Funding in Arbitration: Global Trends, Challenges, and the Roadmap for India”, The Arbitration Digest, available at: https://thearbitrationdigest.com/third-party-funding-in-arbitration-global-trends-challenges-and-the-roadmap-for-india/ [7] Rule 38, SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2025. [8] Rule No. 24(l), SIAC Investment Rules, 2017. [9] Dr. Dean Lewis, “Jurisdiction guide to third part funding in international arbitration”, Pinsent Masons, 07 May 2021, available at: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/third-party-funding-international-arbitration [10] Article 44, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules, 2024. [11] Arkin v. Borchard Lines Ltd., [2005] EWCA Civ 655. [12] Excalibur Ventures LLC v. Texas Keystone Inc., [2016] EWCA Civ 1144. [13] Essar Oilfield Services Ltd v. Norscot Rig Management Pvt. Ltd., [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm). [14] Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v. Fostif Pty Ltd., [2006] HCA 41. [15] Gokul Holani, “Third Party Funding in Arbitration: Indian Legal Perspective”, Delhi Law Review, Vol. VI, Manupatra, 2019, available at: https://articles.manupatra.com/pdf/133005e4-8f89-4437-bfa0-9b68361fff0e.pdf [16] Ganga Ram v. Devi Das, (1886) ILR 8 All 369. [17] Re: G. A. Senior Advocate, (1954) AIR 393 SC. [18] Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, (2018) 5 SCC 379. [19] Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mukherjee, (1876) 2 App Cas 186. [20] Report of the High-Level Committee to Review the Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India, 30 July 2017. [21] Report of the Expert Committee to Examine the Working of the Arbitration Law and Recommend Reforms in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to make it alternative in the letter and spirit, 07 February 2024. [22] Para. 3.17, Vishwanathan Committee Report. [23] Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited v. SBS Holdings, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3191. [24] The International Council for Commercial Arbitration, Report of the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, The ICCA Reports No. 4 p. 17.
29 April 2025
Press Releases

Saraf and Partners advised Systematix Corporate Services Ltd, Batlivala & Karani Securities India Private Limited, Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd, IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Ltd. and Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Limited in relation to the QIP by Central Bank of India.

Saraf and Partners advised Systematix Corporate Services Ltd, Batlivala & Karani Securities India Private Limited, Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd, IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Ltd. and Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Limited in relation to the qualified institutional placement (“QIP”) by Central Bank of India (“Bank”). Bank filed a placement document on March 27, 2025, for an issue of 37,04,61,842 equity shares to qualified institutional buyers aggregating up to ₹1500 crore. The proceeds of the QIP are proposed to be used towards augmentation of Bank’s Tier-I capital base to meet Bank’s future capital requirements and to support growth plans and to enhance the business of the Bank. Our transaction team was led by Partner, Mathew Thomas.
28 April 2025
Press Releases

Saraf and Partners advised Indian Overseas Bank in its QIP of equity shares aggregating to INR 14,368.98 million.

Saraf and Partners advised Indian Overseas Bank (“IOB”) in its qualified institutional placement (“QIP”) of equity shares aggregating to INR 14,368.98 million. IOB offers a wide range of banking products and services to meet the needs of customers, including both resident and non-resident Indians. The proceeds of the QIP are proposed to be used towards augmentation of Bank’s Tier-I capital base to meet Bank’s future capital requirements and to support growth plans and to enhance the business of the Bank. IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Ltd., Systematix Corporate Services Ltd, Elara Capital (India) Private Limited and Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd acted as placement agents on the QIP. Our transaction team was led by Partner, Mathew Thomas.
28 April 2025
Press Releases

Saraf and Partners acts for AMPIN Energy Transition Private Limited (AMPIN) in a fund raise of USD 50 Million from Siemens Financial Services, the financing arm of Siemens AG.

Saraf and Partners acts for AMPIN Energy Transition Private Limited (AMPIN) in a fund raise of USD 50 Million from Siemens Financial Services, the financing arm of Siemens AG (Siemens). Siemens subscribed to a mix of equity shares and preference shares of AMPIN for its capital infusion. The Firm was involved in deal structuring, drafting of the Securities Subscription Agreement and amending and updating the existing Shareholders Agreement; negotiating and finalising these transaction documents with Siemens and the exiting investors of AMPIN. The Firm also provided closing assistance to AMPIN post execution of these transaction documents. The transaction team was led by Partner, Avirup Nag.
28 April 2025
Press Releases

Raunaq Bahadur Mathur Joins Saraf and Partners as Partner To Further Bolster the Firm’s Dispute Resolution Practice

Saraf and Partners is pleased to announce the joining of Raunaq Bahadur Mathur as a Partner in its Dispute Resolution practice, based out of the firm’s Delhi office. Raunaq brings with her over 15 years of rich experience in handling complex, high-value international and domestic arbitrations as well as commercial litigation. Her practice spans a diverse range of contentious matters, including shareholder and investment disputes, multi-jurisdictional conflicts, and sector-specific issues in infrastructure and oil & gas. She has represented leading Indian and global clients in arbitrations under LCIA, ICC, SIAC, and ad hoc rules, and regularly appears before the Supreme Court of India and several High Courts across the country. Raunaq holds a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from Bhopal University and an LL.M. in Business Laws from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, graduating with gold medals for academic excellence in both degrees. Prior to joining Saraf and Partners, she was a Partner at S&R Associates, New Delhi. Mohit Saraf, Founder and Managing Partner, Saraf and Partners, commented: “We are delighted to welcome Raunaq to our growing disputes practice. Her extensive experience in managing high-stakes, cross-border arbitrations and complex commercial disputes strengthens our capabilities and reinforces our commitment to providing strategic and effective counsel to our clients in a rapidly evolving global environment.” Sharing her perspective on the new role, Raunaq Bahadur Mathur said: “Joining Saraf and Partners is an exciting step forward in my professional journey. I remain committed to providing clear, strategic, and trusted legal advice and look forward to contributing to the continued growth and excellence of the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice.” With Raunaq’s addition, Saraf and Partners now comprises 40 Partners across its 5 offices in India, further cementing its position as one of India’s leading full-service law firms. About Saraf and Partners Saraf and Partners is a contemporary, full-service Indian law firm with lawyers who bring over three decades of experience. The firm is known for delivering bespoke, innovative, and integrated legal solutions across practice areas, underpinned by global best practices and an unwavering commitment to ethical standards. Media Contact: Sanya Sud Corporate Communications Executive, Saraf and Partners Mobile: +91 9958677011
28 April 2025
Press Releases

Saraf and Partners acts for AMPIN Energy Transition Private Limited (AMPIN) in a fund raise of USD 50 Million from Siemens Financial Services

New Delhi, India, March 28, 2025: Saraf and Partners acted for AMPIN Energy Transition Private Limited (AMPIN) in a fund raise of USD 50 Million from Siemens Financial Services, the financing arm of Siemens AG (Siemens). Siemens subscribed to a mix of equity shares and preference shares of AMPIN for its capital infusion. The Firm was involved in deal structuring, drafting of the Securities Subscription Agreement and amending and updating the existing Shareholders Agreement; negotiating and finalising these transaction documents with Siemens and the exiting investors of AMPIN. The Firm also provided closing assistance to AMPIN post execution of these transaction documents. The transaction team was led by Partner, Avirup Nag. Notably, Siemens's infusion in AMPIN, marks AMPIN’s third major investment transaction this financial year (Saraf and Partners represented AMPIN in all three fund raises), bringing the total equity capital raised in this FY to USD 270 million, and taking the total equity capital raised by AMPIN to nearly USD 700 million to create a capital deployment pool of over USD 4 billion. For more information, kindly contact: Name: Sanya Sud (Corporate Communications Executive at Saraf and Partners) Email: [email protected] Avirup Nag
24 April 2025
Press Releases

Saraf, Khaitan & Co. act on Fortis’ acquisition of Shrimann Superspecialty Hospital, Jalandhar

Fortis Hospotel Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare Limited,has entered into definitive agreements for the acquisition of Shrimann Superspecialty Hospital, Jalandhar (“Shrimann Hospital”) from inter alia Shriman Enterprises (a partnership firm) by way of a slump sale, for an overall purchase consideration of approximately INR 462 crores. Shrimann Hospital, commissioned in 2018, is among the leading multi-specialty hospitals in Jalandhar and has an existing capacity of 228 beds (191 beds currently operational), with potential to scale up capacity to over 450 beds. The facility is NABH accredited and offers a complete range of super specialties including key capacities such as cardiac sciences, nephrology, general and laparoscopic surgery, oncology, neurosciences and gastroenterology. Saraf and Partners acted for Fortis Healthcare Limited and its subsidiary Fortis Hospotel Limited on all aspects of the deal including structuring, as well as the drafting, negotiation and finalization of the definitive agreements. The transaction team was led by Vaibhav Kakkar (Senior Partner), Sahil Arora (Partner) and Debarpan Ghosh (Partner). The Real Estate team was led by Saroj Jha (Senior Partner). Khaitan and Co. acted for Shriman Enterprises and its partners. Fortis Healthcare Limited is a leading integrated healthcare delivery service provider in India. The healthcare verticals of the company primarily comprise hospitals, diagnostics and day care specialty facilities. Currently, the company operates 27 healthcare facilities (including JVs and O&M facilities). The Company’s network comprises approximately 4,700 operational beds (including O&M beds) and 405 diagnostics labs. The acquisition is in line with Fortis’ cluster-focused inorganic growth strategy and further bolsters Fortis’ network in the state of Punjab, and will enable Fortis to scale up and further delivery quality healthcare services to patients in Jalandhar and the surrounding catchment areas.  
18 February 2025
Content supplied by Saraf and Partners