Delhi High Court to Facilitate UK Court in Recording Evidence for Nirav Modi’s Unpaid Loan Litigation

Introduction

In a landmark procedural move, the Delhi High Court has agreed to assist the King's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales by recording the evidence of a key witness in the ongoing civil litigation involving fugitive diamond trader Nirav Modi and Bank of India. Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the matter, issued directions on January 12, 2026, to implead the parties from the UK proceedings and issue notices, marking what appears to be the first instance of the court acting on a direct foreign judicial request without an application from a party to the lis. This development underscores India's commitment to international judicial cooperation under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970, amid allegations of unpaid loans against Modi and his associated entities. The witness, Animesh Barua, a Bank of India employee based in New Delhi, is central to the case concerning Firestar Diamond FZE, Firestar International Private Limited, and Nirav Deepak Modi. Meanwhile, the court sought assistance from Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to navigate the unprecedented procedural terrain.

This decision arrives against the backdrop of Modi's high-profile extradition saga from the UK on fraud charges related to the Punjab National Bank scam, highlighting the intersection of domestic civil proceedings and international enforcement mechanisms. For legal professionals, this ruling could set a precedent for handling letters of request in cross-border commercial disputes, potentially streamlining evidence gathering in global litigations.

Case Background

The underlying litigation originates from allegations of unpaid loans extended by Bank of India to entities controlled by Nirav Modi, the once-prominent diamond merchant who fled India in 2018 amid a multi-billion rupee banking fraud scandal. In the UK proceedings, Bank of India is pursuing recovery against Firestar Diamond FZE (a Dubai-based firm), Firestar International Private Limited (an Indian company), and Modi personally, accusing them of defaulting on substantial credit facilities. Modi's extravagant lifestyle and business empire, once valued in billions, collapsed following the exposure of fraudulent letters of undertaking that siphoned funds from Indian public sector banks.

The immediate trigger for the Delhi High Court's involvement was a formal Letter of Request dated December 2025, forwarded by India's Ministry of Law and Justice from the Senior Master of the King's Bench Division. The letter invokes the Hague Evidence Convention, to which both India and the UK are signatories, seeking assistance to record the oral testimony of Animesh Barua, Field General Manager at Bank of India's New Delhi office. Barua's evidence is deemed crucial, likely pertaining to the bank's lending practices, transaction details, or internal approvals related to the loans in question.

Under Indian law, such requests are governed by Order XXVI Rules 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empower high courts to issue commissions for examining witnesses abroad or, conversely, to facilitate foreign courts. However, Rule 20 typically requires an application from a party to the foreign suit or a state law officer. Here, no such application was made; instead, the request came directly via diplomatic channels. The Union Government is not a party to the UK lis, prompting Justice Shankar to register the matter as C. RULE 1/2026 and proactively seek inputs from the ASG.

Nirav Modi, currently incarcerated at HMP Thameside in London while facing extradition to India, adds layers of complexity. Notices to him are to be served through the Indian Consulate General in the UK. The case timeline traces back to the loans disbursed in the mid-2010s, with the UK suit likely filed post-Modi's flight and asset freezes. This procedural step in Delhi could expedite the UK trial, potentially influencing Modi's broader legal battles, including his ongoing resistance to extradition on grounds of human rights and fair trial concerns.

Relatedly, recent Delhi High Court rulings reflect a busy docket on diverse fronts. For instance, in an election petition, the court dismissed Aam Aadmi Party leader Somnath Bharti's challenge to BJP MLA Satish Upadhyay's 2025 victory from Malviya Nagar, emphasizing mandatory joinder of parties accused of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA). Similarly, the court quashed income tax reassessment notices against NDTV founders Prannoy and Radhika Roy, ruling against the department's "change of opinion" on prior examinations. These decisions, alongside the Modi matter, illustrate the High Court's role in balancing procedural rigor with substantive justice.

Arguments Presented

Given the procedural nature of the hearing, formal arguments from adversarial parties were limited, as the matter was initiated ex parte on the foreign request. However, Justice Shankar's order highlights the court's proactive stance in addressing potential jurisdictional and precedential hurdles.

On the court's side, the bench noted the absence of direct precedent for acting sans party application, underscoring the need for ASG assistance to chart the "future course of action." The order emphasizes that impleading parties—Bank of India as plaintiff and the Firestar entities plus Modi as defendants—is purely for convenience, clarifying that no lis is pending before the Delhi court. This framing avoids any implication of parallel jurisdiction while enabling efficient notice service.

The Ministry of Law and Justice's communication, as reproduced in the order, argues for issuing a commission under Order XXVI Rule 19 CPC to record Barua's statement and report back to the British High Commission. It stresses the witness's location within Delhi's jurisdiction and the convention's mandate for mutual assistance in civil matters.

From the perspective of the involved entities, no submissions were recorded at this stage, but the order anticipates responses upon notice. Bank of India, as the UK plaintiff, stands to benefit from swift evidence gathering to bolster its recovery claims. Conversely, Modi's interests may involve challenging the request's validity or scope, especially given his fugitive status and ongoing UK appeals. The ASG's role, as requested, will likely involve governmental perspectives on comity, sovereignty, and alignment with India's foreign policy on economic offenders.

In broader context, integrating insights from parallel DHC proceedings, such as the Bharti election case, reveals a consistent judicial emphasis on statutory compliance. There, petitioner Bharti argued that "accepting money" didn't qualify as corrupt practice, but the court rejected this, mandating inclusion of accused candidate Jitender Kochar under Section 82(b) ROPA. Similarly, in the Sisodia election challenge, the court clarified that mere FIR registration doesn't trigger disclosure under Section 33A ROPA absent charges or cognizance. These underscore procedural fatal defects, a theme echoed in the Modi order's careful navigation of CPC rules.

Legal Analysis

The Delhi High Court's approach hinges on the interpretive flexibility of Order XXVI CPC within the framework of the Hague Evidence Convention. Rule 19 allows courts to issue commissions for witness examination based on foreign requests, but Rule 20's party-application requirement posed a novel challenge. Justice Shankar bridged this by registering an independent proceeding (C. RULE 1/2026) via the Ministry's forwarding, treating it as a sui generis matter warranting ASG intervention. This aligns with Section 44A CPC, which facilitates foreign judgments and evidence, and reflects India's obligations under the 1970 Convention, ratified to promote efficient cross-border discovery.

No precedents are directly cited in the order, but analogous cases like Union of India v. R. Krishna Murthy (on international comity) and procedural rulings under the CPC suggest courts can adapt rules for diplomatic requests. The bench's clarification that impleadment is "for convenience only" prevents forum-shopping risks, distinguishing it from full-fledged suits under Section 9 CPC.

Key distinctions emerge between voluntary party-driven requests (common in private international law) and state-mediated ones, as here. The order avoids expanding jurisdiction, focusing on auxiliary assistance—recording evidence without adjudicating merits. This mirrors global practices, such as US courts under 28 USC §1782, but tailored to India's federal structure.

Integrating other recent DHC rulings provides comparative depth. In the NDTV case ( Prannoy Roy v. Union of India ), Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar quashed reassessments under Section 147 Income Tax Act, deeming them impermissible "change of opinion" post prior scrutiny, and imposed Rs. 2 lakh costs. This reinforces finality in tax probes, paralleling the Modi order's emphasis on procedural innovation without revisiting foreign merits.

In constitutional matters, the DHC's ruling in Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association held bar associations non-state under Article 12, dismissing writs for lack of public function. The bench, led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, clarified no mandamus lies under Article 226, directing recourse to Bar Council disciplinary mechanisms or criminal law. This procedural delimitation echoes the Modi case's boundary-setting.

For election law, the Bharti dismissal ( Somnath Bharti v. Satish Upadhyay , E.L.PET. 7/2025) under Section 86(1) ROPA for non-joinder highlights incurable defects, citing Supreme Court precedents like Ajmera Housing Corp. v. Amrit M. Patel on affidavit requirements. Justice Jasmeet Singh stressed binding precedent under Article 141, rejecting equity-based dilutions. Likewise, in Pratap Chandra v. Manish Sisodia , mere FIRs don't mandate disclosure under Section 33A ROPA without charges, dismissing vague allegations under Section 100(1)(d).

These analyses collectively illustrate the DHC's rigorous adherence to statutory silos, fostering predictability in diverse domains.

Key Observations

The judgment yields several pivotal excerpts illuminating the court's rationale:

• On the request's nature: "The letter states that the evidence of a witness who is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is required to be recorded and seeks the assistance of this Court in that regard."

• Addressing 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."

• Impleadment clarification: "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."

These quotes, attributed to Justice C. Hari Shankar's order, emphasize auxiliary support over jurisdictional overreach, ensuring comity without compromising sovereignty.

From related rulings, notable observations include:

In the Roy NDTV case: The bench "agreed with the Roys that the department cannot take a different view after an earlier reassessment has been completed," imposing costs for vexatious revisits.

In the Bar Association matter: "As a Bar Association does not perform public functions, no mandamus can be issued to it in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226."

In Bharti's petition: "The petitioner's omission to implead Mr. Kochar is not a mere technical lapse but an incurable defect, which... strikes at the root of maintainability."

These distill the DHC's commitment to procedural integrity.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court directed the issuance of emergent notices to all parties—Bank of India, Firestar Diamond FZE, Firestar International Private Limited, and Nirav Modi—by all modes, including email and through the UK Consulate for Modi. The matter is returnable on January 15, 2026, with the Registry to file proof of service. ASG Chetan Sharma and CGSC Amit Tiwari are to assist on procedural next steps, potentially leading to a commission for Barua's examination under Order XXVI Rule 19 CPC.

Practically, this facilitates prompt evidence recording, aiding Bank of India's UK recovery efforts without delaying the foreign trial. For Modi, it may intensify pressure, as testimony could strengthen default claims, impacting asset seizures or extradition.

Broader implications are profound: This precedent could normalize direct Hague requests in India, reducing bureaucratic hurdles for commercial disputes involving NRIs or foreign entities. It bolsters India's global judicial image, encouraging reciprocity in evidence-sharing. Legal practitioners in international law may see increased commissions, necessitating expertise in CPC adaptations.

In parallel, the quashing of Roy reassessments signals caution against serial tax probes, potentially curbing departmental overreach and promoting taxpayer certainty. The Bar Association ruling limits writ expansions, channeling lawyer disputes to internal forums. Election decisions like Bharti and Sisodia reinforce ROPA's strictures, deterring frivolous challenges and upholding electoral finality.

Overall, these DHC outputs, spanning civil procedure to constitutional bounds, reinforce a judiciary prioritizing statutory fidelity amid evolving challenges. As the Modi matter progresses, it may catalyze amendments to Order XXVI for smoother international collaboration, benefiting cross-border commerce.