Hyderabad Court Grants Strong Interim Relief to Euro Exim Bank; Unverified Allegations Against Bank Pulled Up

In a significant judicial setback to those who aired sensational allegations against Euro Exim Bank, the Hyderabad City Civil Court has recorded that the respondents failed to place any material before the Court to justify the grave imputations they made against the bank, including claims that its guarantees were “fraudulent,” that it was a “donga bank,” and that it was involved in a so-called “mega scam.” The Court noted that the respondents did not produce documentary support, verifiable material, or even the source for several of these allegations.

See the order's discussion at pp. 31, 43–46, 52–53, 69–70: Hyderabad court order.

One of the clearest findings concerns the false net-worth narrative broadcast against the bank. The order records that the media respondents claimed Euro Exim Bank's net worth was only about ₹8 crore, yet produced no document whatsoever to support that assertion and failed to state where they obtained such information. The Court simultaneously recorded that Euro Exim Bank had placed Ex.P11, its financial statement, on record to rebut that allegation. Separately, the bank's own case before the Court was that its audited FY 2023–24 financials reflected net worth above ₹1,900 crore. Hyderabad order, pp. 5–6, 21, 43–44

The Court went further: it found that the respondents had not produced “any scrap of paper” to show that Euro Exim Bank was issuing guarantees illegally, had not substantiated their claims of hawala, had not shown any basis for their RBI/FEMA violation allegations, and had not placed material to show that any criminal action had ever been initiated against the bank on the accusations being repeatedly telecast. On that basis, the Court held there was no prima facie basis to conclude that the guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank were fraudulent or “donga bank guarantees.” Hyderabad order, pp. 45, 48–52

The Court also held that Euro Exim Bank had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that continued telecast of such unverified imputations would cause irreparable injury to the bank's reputation and business. It accordingly restrained respondent No. 1 from telecasting imputations against the bank without authenticity, supporting evidence, or verifiable material, and further restrained the use of defamatory, derogatory, and demeaning titles while publishing such content. Hyderabad order, pp. 52–53, 69–70

Critically, the Court also directed that if any content is hereafter published or telecast on this subject, the respondents must clearly disclose through audio and visual representation that the matter is already pending before the Court in O.S. No. 413/2024. That direction sends a wider message: journalism is protected, but reckless publication without verification is not. Hyderabad order, p. 70

This is not the first time these allegations have failed to gain traction in court. In March 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed Ravi Prakash's PIL concerning these guarantee-related allegations, recording, among other things, suppression of facts and lack of bona fides. Public regulatory records in Saint Lucia also continue to list Euro Exim Bank Ltd. as a licensed Class A international bank.

The message from the Hyderabad order is unambiguous: serious allegations against a bank cannot be thrown into the public domain on speculation, innuendo, or theatrics. If accusations are made, they must be backed by evidence. If they are not, the law will step in. Euro Exim Bank has chosen the constitutional path - placing its faith in documentary proof, judicial process, and the Indian legal system.