News

The July 19 order issued by the arbitrator dealt a blow to Max Healthcare as it refused to grant urgent interim relief and status quo regarding third-party rights. Unhappy with the outcome, Max approached the High Court for the second time on July 27, seeking a resolution to its grievances.

The ongoing legal tussle stems from Max Healthcare's desire to acquire the hospital chain. Earlier this year, on May 3, Max had approached the High Court to safeguard its rights under the term sheet signed with Care Hospitals, as well as Touch Healthcare, Quality Healthcare, and Evercare Group Management. Of these, Quality Care operates Care Hospitals, while Touch Healthcare and Evercare are entities under the US-based fund TPG.

Max filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to protect its contractual rights even before the formal commencement of the arbitration proceedings. In response, Justice Milind Jadhav directed the parties to resolve their issues before an arbitrator and appointed Justice Kathawalla as the sole arbitrator in the case.

As per Justice Jadhav's directions, the arbitrator was tasked with deciding Max's interim application for urgent relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act within two weeks. The urgency arose from Max's claim that Care Group had assigned third-party rights to another company, which allegedly violated the binding term sheet signed with Max. Consequently, Max sought an order of status quo on third-party rights, pending the resolution of the dispute.

The case has now reached the Bombay High Court, where it is scheduled to be heard on September 1. Both parties are gearing up with their legal representatives to put forth their arguments.

Representing Max Healthcare will be Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, supported by a team from Nishith Desai Associates, with Partner Vyapak Desai leading the effort. On the other side, Care Hospitals will be represented by Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, assisted by a team from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, led by Partner Meghna Rajadhyaksha.

The outcome of this legal battle is significant not only for Max Healthcare and Care Hospitals but also for the broader healthcare sector. The case highlights the importance of well-defined and legally sound contractual agreements in business dealings, particularly in the healthcare industry, where such arrangements can impact patient care and services.

With the court date fast approaching, all eyes are on the Bombay High Court as it prepares to hear Max Healthcare's appeal against the interim arbitral order. As the legal proceedings unfold, the healthcare industry and legal experts will closely monitor the case's implications on future contractual agreements and dispute resolution mechanisms.

In the end, it is the court's decision that will determine the fate of Max Healthcare's efforts to protect its contractual rights and pave the way for a resolution to the ongoing dispute with Care Hospitals and TPG Inc.