E-Paper
Setback for Mehul Choksi as UK court orders £6,00,000 security of costs
The court observed in the order passed on Friday that it cannot be said that there is a high probability of the claimant (Choksi) succeeding on his claims.
New Delhi: In a setback to Mehul Choksi, a UK court has issued an order of security of costs on the fugitive diamantaire, who is suing the government of India and five others for damages over claims that he was abducted in Antigua and Barbuda in 2021 as part of a conspiracy.
Officials familiar with the development said that the court on Friday has imposed security of costs worth over 6,00,000 pounds on Choksi pending a verdict on his claim of damages. Four of the defendants had sought the order.
ALSO READ | Mehul Choksi’s son was ‘actively’ involved in money laundering case with father: ED
An order for security for costs protects a party (often a defendant) against the risk that they will win at trial and be awarded their costs, but then not be able to enforce a costs order against the other (losing) party, either within the jurisdiction or abroad.
The court of Justice Mansfield at King’s Bench in the UK high court, observed in the order passed on Friday that it cannot be said that there is a high probability of the claimant (Choksi) succeeding on his claims.
In May 2024, Choksi had sued the Indian government and Gurdip Bath, Barbara Jarabik, Gurmit Singh, Gurjit Singh Bhandal and Leslie Farrow-Guy, all UK residents. He alleged that on May 23, 2021, he was kidnapped in Antigua and taken by boat to Dominica at the behest of India, a charge denied by the Indian government at multiple forums. Choksi alleged that Bath, Jarabik, Singh, Bhandal and Farrow-Guy were involved and he was assaulted during the voyage. He has claimed damages for alleged injuries (both physical and psychiatric) sustained.
During the proceedings, Singh, Bhandal, Farrow-Guy and Bath had demanded that Choksi deposit “security for costs” of 8,00,000 pounds with the court to cover their expenses in case they got a favourable verdict.
“Taking all the circumstances into account, in my judgment it would be just to make an order for security for costs. This is not one of those rare cases where it can be seen that there is a high probability of success, either on the preliminary issues or at trial. I do not find that it would be unjust to order security because of the seriousness of the allegations against the defendants. Given that there is a dispute of fact as to whether the defendants were involved in kidnapping and assaulting Choksi, I cannot proceed on the basis that they were. Given the circumstances I have outlined above, there is a real risk that an order for costs against Choksi would not be capable of enforcement. On the other hand, I am not satisfied that the claim would be stifled if I order security,” the order states.
