Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited directors could face contempt proceedings over allegations that the bank acted in defiance of High Court orders in a dispute with Infinity Industrial Park Limited.
The matter is before the High Court following an application filed by Infinity Industrial Park, which alleges that the bank moved to place the company under administration despite subsisting court orders.
In directions issued on August 26, 2026, Justice Peter Mulwa certified the application as urgent and allowed it to be dealt with during the court recess.
The judge further directed that the respondents be served and file their responses within three days of service.
Pending further directions on September 1, 2026, the court also allowed Prayer 3 of the Chamber Summons dated August 24, 2026, allowing the Notice of Motion filed on the same date to be placed before the Vacation Duty Judge for consideration of its prayers and for expedited inter partes directions.
According to court documents, Bank of Baroda issued an insolvency notice on August 10, 2026, purporting to appoint Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators of Infinity Industrial Park.
The purported administrators subsequently took steps to assume control of the company’s affairs, including demanding its assets, title documents, books and records.
Infinity Industrial Park argues that the move was undertaken in breach of orders previously issued by the High Court.
The dispute dates back to September 8, 2025, when the High Court entered default judgment in favour of Infinity Industrial Park after Bank of Baroda failed to file its defence within the stipulated timelines.
Among the orders issued was a permanent injunction restraining the bank, its employees, agents or anyone acting under its instructions from, among other things, selling, disposing of, taking possession of, appointing receivers or administrators over, or otherwise interfering with LR No. 31978 (Original No. 11522), Nairobi, Njiru, along the Eastern Bypass.
The bank later moved to have the judgment set aside. However, the application was dismissed on July 31, 2026, after the court found that the bank had participated in the proceedings and had been granted an opportunity to file its defence but failed to comply with the court’s directions.
Infinity Industrial Park now alleges that despite the subsisting orders and the dismissal of the application seeking to set aside the judgment, the bank proceeded with the appointment of administrators barely days later.
In its application, the company argues that the alleged actions could not await the end of the High Court vacation, claiming that the continued actions of the bank would have substantial and adverse consequences for the plaintiff.
It further argues that its employees risk dismissal through no fault of their own and that the actions allegedly undertaken by the bank could compromise the gains realised following the court’s judgment.
The contempt application names Bank of Baroda’s directors, Astitva Bhardwaj and Aman Kumar, alongside the two purported administrators, as alleged contemnors.
The applicant is seeking to have them found guilty of contempt for allegedly breaching the court orders issued on September 8, 2025 and July 31, 2026.
It is also seeking sanctions, including fines or committal to civil jail if contempt is established, as well as the cancellation of the August 10 insolvency notice and any actions taken pursuant to it.
However, the court has not yet made a determination on the contempt allegations or found the bank, its directors or the purported administrators guilty of contempt.
The matter will come up before the High Court on September 1, 2026, for further directions.
