Delhi High Court Invokes Centre's Assistance for UK's Witness Examination Request in High-Profile Nirav Modi Fraud Trial

Introduction

In a significant procedural development highlighting the complexities of international judicial cooperation, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to provide assistance regarding a formal request from the UK's King's Bench Division to record evidence from a key witness in the ongoing litigation against fugitive businessman Nirav Modi. Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the matter titled Bank of India v. Firestar Diamond FZE and Ors. (C. Rule 1/2026), issued an interim order on January 12, 2026, emphasizing the absence of precedent for such direct communications from foreign courts without an initiating application from a party to the suit. The case stems from the multi-billion-dollar Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam involving Modi, where Bank of India is pursuing recovery against Modi's entities in a UK court. The witness in question, Mr. Animesh Barua, Field General Manager at Bank of India's New Delhi office, holds potentially crucial testimony. This order not only underscores the procedural hurdles under India's Civil Procedure Code (CPC) but also signals a potential evolution in handling cross-border evidence requests under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970.

The bench invoked Order XXVI Rules 19 and 20 of the CPC, which govern the issuance of commissions for examining witnesses abroad or within jurisdiction upon foreign requests. Notably, the court impleaded the parties from the UK proceedings—Bank of India as plaintiff and Firestar Diamond FZE, Firestar International Private Limited, and Nirav Modi as defendants—for procedural convenience, while clarifying that the substantive lis remains abroad. Notices were ordered to be issued, including to Modi, who is incarcerated in the UK, via the Indian Consulate General there. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Amit Tiwari were requested to guide the court on future steps, given the novel nature of the request routed through India's Ministry of Law and Justice.

This development arrives amid ongoing extradition battles and asset recovery efforts against Modi, who has been fighting deportation from the UK since 2019. It also intersects with broader themes of judicial reciprocity between India and the UK, potentially influencing how Indian courts respond to similar international pleas in economic offense cases.

Case Background

The roots of this procedural skirmish lie in the infamous ₹14,000 crore PNB fraud case, where Nirav Modi and his associates allegedly defrauded public sector banks using fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs). While Modi faces extradition proceedings in London and multiple charges in India under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and IPC sections for cheating and criminal conspiracy, parallel civil recovery suits have been filed internationally. Bank of India, one of the affected lenders, initiated proceedings in the UK against Modi's diamond trading firms—Firestar Diamond FZE (a UAE-based entity) and Firestar International Private Limited (an Indian company)—along with Modi personally, to recover dues linked to the scam.

The UK proceedings, before the King's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales, reached a stage where oral evidence from Mr. Animesh Barua became essential. Barua, as a senior official at Bank of India's Connaught Circus branch in New Delhi, is presumed to possess insights into the bank's involvement or related transactions in the fraudulent scheme. On December 2025, the Senior Master of the King's Bench Division forwarded a Letter of Request (LoR) via the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice, invoking the Hague Evidence Convention, to which both nations are signatories. The LoR specifically sought the Delhi High Court's aid to record Barua's testimony under Order XXVI Rule 19 CPC, which allows commissions for examining witnesses in India for foreign proceedings.

The Delhi High Court received the matter as C. Rule 1/2026, a suo motu listing prompted by the Ministry's communication. The core legal questions revolve around: (1) the validity of acting on a direct foreign court communication without an application from a party to the lis or a State Law Officer, as mandated by Order XXVI Rule 20 CPC; (2) the procedural mechanics of impleading foreign parties and issuing notices, especially to an incarcerated defendant abroad; and (3) the broader framework of mutual legal assistance in civil matters absent bilateral treaties beyond the Hague Convention. No prior timeline exists for this specific suit in India, as it mirrors the UK case initiated post-2018 scam revelations, but Modi's UK incarceration since 2019 adds layers of diplomatic coordination.

Arguments Presented

As this was an initial hearing on the LoR, formal arguments from the parties were not yet presented, given the court's direction for notices. However, the order reflects the court's proactive stance and the government's preliminary input. The UK LoR, as extracted in the judgment, argues for seamless facilitation under the Hague framework, emphasizing the witness's location within Delhi's jurisdiction and the need for his testimony to advance the recovery suit. It underscores the convention's aim to simplify evidence-taking across borders without undue formality, requesting a commission under CPC provisions to record Barua's statement and transmit it back via the British High Commission in New Delhi.

From the Indian side, the court itself flagged potential procedural gaps. Justice Shankar noted that Rule 20 CPC typically requires initiation by a party or State Law Officer, not a standalone foreign communication. This raises concerns about jurisdiction without adversarial invocation, potentially leading to ex parte actions. The bench sought the ASG's assistance to navigate this, implying governmental arguments might focus on sovereignty, reciprocity, and ensuring due process for defendants like Modi, who could contest the witness's examination or its admissibility. Reports from other sources, including Bar and Bench coverage, highlight that ASG Sharma and CGSC Tiwari were present and agreed to examine the issue, suggesting an initial governmental contention that while cooperation is desirable, it must align with domestic procedural safeguards to avoid precedent for unsolicited foreign interventions.

Petitioners' (or future intervenors') contentions may center on the scam's gravity, urging swift evidence collection to aid recovery, while respondents like Modi might argue against compelled testimony without his input, citing rights under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution (protection against self-incrimination) or equivalent UK protections. Factual points include Barua's role in possibly verifying LoU-related documents, the defendants' assets frozen globally, and Modi's prison address at HMP Thameside, London, necessitating consular notice.

Legal Analysis

The Delhi High Court's order meticulously dissects the interplay between domestic CPC provisions and international obligations under the Hague Evidence Convention. Order XXVI Rule 19 empowers courts to issue commissions for local witness examination on foreign requests, but Rule 20 conditions it on applications by parties or State officers, creating a procedural bottleneck for direct LoRs. Justice Shankar's observation on the "absence of any earlier precedent" for acting without party initiation marks a critical legal principle: Indian courts may require governmental or party mediation to legitimize such requests, preserving adversarial fairness and preventing unilateral foreign influence.

No specific precedents are cited in the order, but the ruling implicitly draws on broader jurisprudence under Section 11 of the CPC (foreign judgments) and mutual legal assistance treaties. For instance, in Shivnarayan v. State of Maharashtra (1980), the Supreme Court emphasized procedural rigor in cross-border evidence, relevant here to ensure notices prevent surprise. The impleadment of parties "for convenience only" distinguishes this from substantive jurisdiction, akin to Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003), where the SC clarified limited roles in foreign lis enforcement. The Hague Convention's Article 9, allowing evidence via letters rogatory, is directly invoked, but the court tempers it with Indian due process, potentially setting a hybrid model for future cases.

Distinctions are drawn between criminal extradition (under MLATs) and civil evidence requests, with the former more formalized. Allegations in the underlying UK suit involve breach of loan agreements tied to fraudulent LoUs under English contract law, without specific IPC sections here, as it's civil recovery. The order's directive for multi-mode notices, including email and consular channels for Modi, balances efficiency with rights, avoiding defaults that could prejudice defendants.

Integrating insights from other sources, such as the Delhi High Court's parallel handling of IT reassessment cases (e.g., against NDTV promoters), underscores a judicial trend against procedural harassment, which could influence scrutiny of evidence processes. Similarly, the Supreme Court's recent interventions in state-highway liquor bans highlight procedural overreach concerns, paralleling the caution against uninitiated foreign requests.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts that illuminate the court's cautious yet cooperative approach:

• On the procedural novelty: "there does not appear to be any earlier precedent in which the Court has acted on the basis of a communication from the foreign Court, without a party to the lis approaching the Court."

• Regarding governmental involvement: "The learned ASG, Mr. Chetan Sharma and Mr. Amit Tiwari, who are present in Court, are also requested to examine the issue and to assist this Court as to the future course of action to be taken in this matter."

• On impleadment: "It is made clear that the parties are being thus impleaded only for the sake of convenience, and it is not as though the lis is pending before this Court."

• Directing notices: "Let emergent notice be issued by all modes including e-mail at the e-mail IDs of parties/their legal representatives as reflected in the aforesaid extracted communication from the King’s Bench, returnable on 15 January 2026."

• For the incarcerated defendant: "Notice would therefore have to issue to Mr. Nirav Deepak Modi through the Consulate General in the UK... Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG, is requested to ensure that the notice is duly issued to Mr. Nirav Deepak Modi."

These quotes, attributed to Justice C. Hari Shankar's order, emphasize procedural integrity and inter-institutional coordination.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court disposed of the initial listing by issuing emergent notices to all impleaded parties, returnable on January 15, 2026, and directing the Registry to file proof of service. It ordered consular notice to Modi via ASG Sharma and sought detailed assistance from the Centre on procedural pathways, without finally issuing the commission for Barua's examination. No substantive ruling on the LoR's merits was made, deferring to post-notice hearings.

Practically, this ensures Modi and co-defendants can respond, potentially challenging the request on grounds like relevance or coercion, while facilitating evidence for Bank of India's UK recovery bid. Implications include expedited global asset realization in the PNB scam, benefiting Indian lenders. For future cases, it establishes that direct LoRs under the Hague Convention require Indian governmental vetting and party notices, filling a precedent gap and promoting reciprocity without compromising sovereignty. This could streamline similar requests in commercial disputes, reducing delays in international arbitration or debt recovery, but may burden courts with additional diplomatic layers. In the broader context of economic offenses, it reinforces India's commitment to judicial globalization, potentially influencing bilateral talks with the UK on Modi's extradition.