The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central Government after receiving a request from the UK Supreme Court seeking judicial assistance to record witness testimony in the Bank of India–Nirav Modi case under the Hague Convention.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central Government following a request received from the Supreme Court of England and Wales (King’s Bench Division) seeking judicial assistance for recording witness testimony in an ongoing civil dispute involving fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi and Bank of India.
Justice C. Hari Shankar, while passing the order on January 12, 2026, sought the assistance of the Union Government after noting the absence of any clear precedent where an Indian High Court had acted solely based on a communication from a foreign court, without a formal application by any party to the litigation.
The proceedings arose pursuant to a Letter of Request forwarded by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, which was originally issued by the Senior Master of the King’s Bench Division under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970.
The request seeks the recording of testimony of Mr. Animesh Barua, an official of Bank of India, who is currently residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The High Court examined the applicability of Order XXVI Rules 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empower Indian courts to issue commissions for recording evidence for use in foreign courts.
However, Justice Hari Shankar observed that Rule 20 ordinarily requires:
- An application by a party to the foreign proceedings, or
- An application by a law officer acting under instructions from the State Government
Since neither condition was fully satisfied, the Court sought guidance from the Centre.
To facilitate consideration of the request, the Delhi High Court directed that the parties be reflected in the same sequence as in the proceedings pending before the King’s Bench Division in the UK. Accordingly, Bank of India was shown as the plaintiff, while Firestar Diamond FZE, Firestar International Private Limited, and Nirav Deepak Modi were reflected as defendants.
The Court made it explicitly clear that the parties were being impleaded only for procedural convenience, and no substantive lis is pending before the Delhi High Court.
Noting that Nirav Modi is presently incarcerated at HMP Thameside Prison, London, the Court directed that notice be served upon him through the Consulate General of India in the United Kingdom.
The Court requested Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, along with CGSC Amit Tiwari, to ensure proper service and to assist the Court on the future course of action.
Significantly, the Court acknowledged that there appears to be no earlier precedent where an Indian court has acted upon a foreign court’s request in the absence of a formal application by any litigating party.
“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,”
the order noted.
During subsequent proceedings, the Court referred to a 2016 case involving a request from the Government of Portugal in Visesh Infotecnics Ltd. v. Banco EFISA, where similar issues of international judicial assistance were considered.
The Court also asked counsel for Bank of India to seek instructions on whether the bank intends to move a formal application before the High Court.
ALSO READ: “Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi Fled India Due to Delayed Arrests”: Mumbai Court
The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 21, 2026, with the Registry directed to place proof of service on record.
Case Title:
Bank of India Vs Firestar Diamond FZE and Ors
C. RULE 1/2026
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Nirav Modi