Kenya High Court orders Bank of Baroda to pay Rs. 221 crore to Infinity Industrial Park
Bank of Baroda is facing another major legal controversy outside India. This time, the case is related to its operations in Kenya, East Africa. The High Court of Kenya at Nairobi has ordered Bank of Baroda to pay Ksh 2.996 billion, or around ₹221 crore, to Infinity Industrial Park Limited, a company led by prominent Gujarati businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah.
The latest case comes only a few months after another major international settlement involving Bank of Baroda. In June 2026, the bank agreed to pay US$600 million, or around ₹5,700 crore, through its Abu Dhabi branch to settle claims made by NMC Health PLC, NMC Healthcare Ltd, NMC Holding Ltd and their Joint Administrators.
What Is the Kenya Controversy About?
Bank of Baroda had provided loans and other credit facilities to Infinity Industrial Park Limited to finance the development of a large warehouse project in Kenya. As part of the normal financing arrangement, the company used the project land as security for the bank’s financing.
However, problems later developed between the company and the bank. The warehouse project faced serious difficulties in its execution, and the relationship between the two sides deteriorated.
Infinity Industrial Park then approached the court and made several allegations against Bank of Baroda. The company claimed that the bank had withheld important land title documents, which were needed for the project. It also alleged that the bank delayed approvals required to change the use of the property and stopped releasing further funds that were required under the financing arrangement.
According to the developer, these issues created major problems for the project. The company said that the delays, along with difficult economic conditions, affected its cash flow and slowed down the development of the warehouse project.
How Did the Court Case Develop?
Initially, Infinity Industrial Park asked the court to stop Bank of Baroda from taking possession of the property. However, the case later took a different turn because Bank of Baroda did not file its defence within the deadlines set by the court.
The High Court of Kenya entered a default judgment against Bank of Baroda. In simple terms, a default judgment can be issued when a party fails to take the required legal steps within the time allowed by the court.
Bank of Baroda later asked the court to set aside the default judgment. However, Justice Peter Mulwa refused to cancel the judgment, citing procedural non-compliance and the bank’s failure to take the required action in the case.
After some other claims were withdrawn, the court finalized the judgment for special damages of Ksh 2.996 billion, which is approximately ₹221 crore.
Bank’s Assets Can Be Attached and Auctioned
The matter has now moved to the enforcement stage. As Bank of Baroda did not voluntarily settle the amount, the court’s Deputy Registrar issued a Warrant of Attachment.
Under this order, court-appointed bailiffs have been authorized to attach movable assets belonging to Bank of Baroda and sell them through a public auction to recover the amount ordered by the court. This means the bank could face the seizure and auction of eligible movable assets in Kenya if the judgment is not otherwise resolved.
Why Is This Case Important?
The Kenya case is significant because it involves a large amount of money and Bank of Baroda’s international operations. The ₹221 crore judgment in Kenya comes soon after the bank’s US$600 million (around ₹5,700 crore) settlement connected with the NMC Health case.
Why Did Bank of Baroda Fail to File Its Defence on Time?
One of the biggest questions in the Bank of Baroda–Infinity Industrial Park case is why the bank did not file its defence within the deadline given by the Kenyan court. Bank of Baroda has said that the problem was caused by its former lawyers, Tayabjee & Bhalla Advocates, who allegedly failed to inform the bank that the court had granted permission to file a defence within a specific period. The bank says it relied on information from its lawyers and therefore did not properly follow up on the court’s order.
However, the court took a different view. Justice Peter Mulwa noted that Bank of Baroda had already entered the case through its lawyers, participated in the proceedings and had been given an opportunity to file its defence. The court therefore found that the bank failed to comply with the court’s timeline and rejected its attempt to set aside the default judgment.
This has raised serious questions about the bank’s legal and internal processes. How did a major international bank fail to ensure that an important court deadline was followed? Was there a communication gap between the bank and its lawyers? Were there adequate systems to monitor court cases and deadlines? The bank has now placed responsibility on its former lawyers, while the court has held that the bank itself failed to comply with the court’s directions. The available court records and reports do not establish any other reason beyond the bank’s explanation involving its former lawyers.
