Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 307 (Ch)
Prashant Hasmukh Manek & Ors. v 360 One Wam Limited & Ors.
30 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 710 (Comm)
High Court
Several people are accused of a scam involving a share sale. The accused tried to get the case thrown out because it was too late to sue, but the judge said there was enough evidence that they hid their involvement to allow the case to continue.
Key Facts
- •Claimants allege a fraudulent scheme resulting in undervaluation of their shares in Hermes i-Tickets Pte Ltd.
- •Existing proceedings (2017) against other defendants are pending.
- •New proceedings (2022) add IIFL Defendants, alleging deceit, intimidation, conspiracy, and joint tortfeasance.
- •Defendants argue claims are time-barred under Indian or English law.
- •Claimants argue the limitation period was postponed due to fraud and concealment, and English law applies.
- •The key dispute centers on the applicable law (Indian or English) and whether the claimants could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired.
Legal Principles
To grant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, claimants must show a realistic prospect of success.
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20
Limitation periods for torts are six years under English law (Limitation Act 1980, section 2) and three years under Indian law (Limitation Act 1963, Article 113).
Limitation Act 1980, Limitation Act 1963
Limitation periods are postponed in cases of fraud, concealment, or mistake (Limitation Act 1980, section 32; Limitation Act 1963, section 17).
Limitation Act 1980, section 32; Limitation Act 1963, section 17
Applicable law for non-contractual obligations is determined by Rome II Regulation, Article 4.
Rome II Regulation, Article 4
Full and frank disclosure is required when applying for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.
Commercial Court Guide (2022), Appendix 9, para. 6(c)
Outcomes
Defendants' application to set aside service is dismissed.
Claimants have a realistic prospect of success in showing that English law applies and that the claims are not time-barred due to the late discovery of the fraud and the IIFL Defendants' involvement.
Similar Cases
Chowgule & Company Private Ltd & Anor v Pratap Shirke & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2815 (Comm)
Doliaa SAS & Anor v Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
[2023] EWHC 3165 (Comm)
Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo v Fahmy El Gamal
[2023] EWCA Civ 330
Stuart Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 169 (KB)