Saeed Akbar v Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1275 (Ch)
Chowgule & Company Private Ltd & Anor v Pratap Shirke & Ors
9 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2815 (Comm)
High Court
Two families are fighting over money. One family says the other stole a lot of money through a complicated investment. The judge said there wasn't enough proof of stealing, so the family accusing the other of theft lost.
Key Facts
- •Chowgule & Company Private Ltd and Rudra Shipping & Trading Ltd (Claimants) allege a US$128 million fraud against Pratap Shirke, Pradip Mahatme, Vijay Chowgule, and Panoceanic Bulk Carriers (UK) Ltd (Defendants).
- •The dispute stems from a family feud within the Chowgule family in India.
- •Claimants allege a conspiracy to divert funds through investments and loans, ultimately resulting in the loss of US$128 million.
- •Defendants deny fraud, asserting the claim is a tactic in the family dispute and that the investment, while unsuccessful, was legitimate.
- •The Claimants' case relies heavily on inference due to a lack of direct evidence.
- •Mr. Shirke is domiciled in England, and POBCUK is an English company, providing the basis for jurisdiction in England.
- •Defendants applied to have the proceedings stayed or set aside, arguing India is the appropriate forum.
- •The application concerns a freezing injunction and ancillary relief against Mr. Shirke and POBCUK.
Legal Principles
Three-limbed test for a 'good arguable case' in freezing order applications (from *Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV*, and further clarified in *Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc* and *Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA*)
[2019] EWCA Civ 10; [2017] UKSC 80; [2018] UKSC 34
Test for a valid plea of fraud/dishonesty (from *King v Stiefel* and *Barrowfen Properties v Patel*)
[2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 1145 (Ch)
Principles for determining a 'real risk of dissipation' in freezing order applications (from *Lakatamia Shipping Co. Ltd v Morimoto Su*)
[2019] EWCA Civ 2203
Outcomes
Application for a freezing order and ancillary disclosure dismissed.
The court found the Claimants failed to demonstrate a good arguable case of fraud against Mr. Shirke and POBCUK. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support the allegations of dishonesty and improper diversion of funds. The court found the Defendants' explanation of the investment and subsequent events more plausible.
Similar Cases
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 307 (Ch)
Marco Piacquadio & Anor (as Joint Liquidators of Smith & Partner LTD) v Luke Sparkes & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2518 (Ch)
Sunil Gupta & Anor. v Olgun Halil Shah & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 540 (Ch)
Lee Chu v Kin Ming Je & Anor
[2024] EWHC 90 (Ch)