Delhi HC Attaches FIITJEE Sister Concern's Bank Account, Orders Directors to Surrender Passports Over Unpaid Rent

Justice Sachin Datta attached an ICICI Bank account of FIITJEE's alter ego for Rs 66.31 lakh in rent arrears and barred directors from leaving India pending two Section 9 arbitration petitions.

The High Court of Delhi, on 20 August 2026, attached the ICICI Bank account of FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited — described in the order as a sister concern and alter ego of FIITJEE Limited — to secure aggregate rent arrears of Rs 66,31,915 owed to two landlord-petitioners. Justice Sachin Datta, sitting singly, also directed FIITJEE Limited's Directors to appear in court on the next date, deposit their original passports within four weeks, and refrain from travelling abroad without the court's permission. The directions come in two companion petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, each claiming arrears of Rs 33,15,957.50 from the education company.

Two Landlords, Two Petitions, One Defaulting Tenant

Cdr. Inder Jit Singh and another petitioner filed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 384/2025, while Mr. Vijay Singh Vasisht filed O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 385/2025. Both petitions were taken up together before Justice Datta. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Ruchira Vashisht, Advocate, stated that FIITJEE Limited had been a tenant in their respective premises and had left massive rent arrears unpaid. By the time the petitions were heard, the petitioners had already recovered physical possession of the premises, but the outstanding dues — Rs 33,15,957.50 in each matter as on the date of filing — remained entirely unsatisfied.

FIITJEE Limited was represented by Ms. Diksha Narula, Advocate.

The Section 9 Route and the Precedent from O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 125/2025

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to approach a court for interim measures of protection before, during, or after arbitral proceedings. The petitioners invoked this provision to prevent FIITJEE from dissipating or shielding assets before an arbitral award could be enforced.

Counsel for the petitioners drew the court's attention to an earlier order dated 14 August 2025, passed in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 125/2025, a similar matter involving the same respondent. In that case, FIITJEE's liability to a landlord was discharged through a bank account held in the name of FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited at ICICI Bank, Nehru Place branch, New Delhi — Account No. 629405047349. The same account became the focal point in the present proceedings.

FIITJEE's Defence: Police Attachment and Claimed Inability to Pay

Counsel for FIITJEE Limited told the court that the respondent's own bank account had been attached by the police in the context of certain criminal proceedings, and that it was therefore unable to make any payment. The court, however, noted that counsel was unable to provide any details of this alleged police attachment.

The court also noted that counsel could not refute the petitioners' submission that in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 125/2025, FIITJEE's dues to a landlord were cleared precisely through the FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited account. The inability to deny that precedent weighed against the respondent's claim of complete financial paralysis.

Court's Reasoning: Alter Ego, Prior Conduct, and Unrefuted Facts

Justice Datta's order treated FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited as an alter ego of FIITJEE Limited. The basis for this characterisation appears to be the prior instance in which that entity's account was used to discharge FIITJEE Limited's own liabilities — conduct that the respondent's counsel did not refute before the court.

Given that the account had already functioned as a payment channel for FIITJEE's obligations in a comparable proceeding, and given that no verifiable details of any police attachment of FIITJEE's own accounts were placed on record, the court found sufficient grounds to attach the FIITJEE ESchool account up to the aggregate amount claimed across both petitions.

The direction requiring directors to personally appear and surrender their passports reflects the court's concern that FIITJEE's key decision-makers remain within jurisdiction and accountable during the pendency of the interim proceedings.

Outcome

Justice Sachin Datta issued the following directions in the order dated 20 August 2026:

• The amount in ICICI Bank Account No. 629405047349 (held in the name of FIITJEE ESchool Private Limited, Nehru Place branch, New Delhi) stands attached to the extent of Rs 66,31,915, being the aggregate amount payable across both petitions. The attachment is subject to further orders.
• The Directors of FIITJEE Limited are directed to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing.
• The Directors are directed to deposit their original passports in court within four weeks from the date of the order.
• The Directors are restrained from travelling outside India without prior permission of the court.

The matters are listed for 27 January 2027.