The directors of Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited could face contempt proceedings over allegations that the bank acted in defiance of existing High Court orders in a long-running dispute with Infinity Industrial Park Limited.
The dispute has taken a new turn after the High Court allowed an application seeking the restoration of the position that existed before the bank allegedly moved to take control of Infinity Industrial Park.
In directions issued on August 26, 2026, Justice Peter Mulwa allowed the prayer sort in an application filed by the interested party, pending further directions on September 1. The court also directed that the respondents be served and file their responses within three days.
In the prayer, Infinity Industrial Park Limited, sought an order restoring the status quo as at July 31, 2026, meaning that Infinity Industrial Park, its directors, management and employees would continue operating as they had been doing before the contested actions.
The order comes against the backdrop of an alleged attempt by Bank of Baroda to place the company under administration.
According to court documents, the bank 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 administrators subsequently took steps to assume control of the company’s affairs, including demanding its assets, title documents, books and records.
The applicant argues that the move breached orders previously issued by the High Court.
The roots of the dispute go back to September 8, 2025, when the High Court entered default judgement in favour of Infinity Industrial Park after Bank of Baroda failed to file its defence within the stipulated timelines.
Among the orders granted 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 judgement set aside. However, the application was dismissed on July 31, 2026, with the court finding 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.
The applicant now alleges that, despite the subsisting orders and the failed attempt to set aside the judgement, the bank proceeded with the appointment of administrators barely days later.
The contempt application names Bank of Baroda’s directors Astitva Bhardwaj and Aman Kumar, alongside the two purported administrators, as contemnors. It asks the court to find them guilty of contempt for allegedly breaching the orders of September 8, 2025, and July 31, 2026.
The applicant is also seeking sanctions, including fines or committal to civil jail if contempt is established, as well as cancellation of the August 10 insolvency notice and actions taken pursuant to it.
For now, however, the court has not found the bank or its directors guilty of contempt. What has been allowed is Prayer 3, restoring the previous status quo, while the contempt allegations remain to be determined.
The matter will return before the High Court on September 1, 2026, for further directions.
