ICICI Bank UK Plc v Mehta & Ors

ICICI Bank UK Plc v Mehta & Ors

The Bank failed to establish a good arguable case against Mona Mehta because the evidence showed that shares in the Kamala Samir Co-operative Housing Society are immoveable property under Indian law, so Mona's actions did not amount to tacit acceptance of her father's Belgian estate. There was also insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation by Mona. Therefore, the freezing order against Mona must be discharged. In contrast, the Bank established a good arguable case against Mihir Mehta both as heir and as guarantor, and there was a real risk of dissipation due to his recent conviction for dishonesty and other conduct. The English court had jurisdiction over Mihir under Article 8(1) of...

Parties
Claimant/applicant: ICICI Bank UK PLC; First Defendant/respondent: Mihir Mehta; Second Defendant/respondent: Purnima Mehta; Third Defendant/respondent: Mona Mehta; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Manisha Mehta; Fifth Defendant/respondent: Jayam Diamonds International PTE Ltd; Sixth Defendant/respondent: Diamond Capital Investments PTE Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (freezing Injunction) / Adjourned Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Freezing order against Mona Mehta discharged; freezing order against Mihir Mehta continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation, Guarantee Enforcement, Succession Law, Risk of Dissipation, Material Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Banking Law Private International Law Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Under Brussels Regulation Guarantee Enforcement Succession Law Risk of Dissipation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICICI Bank UK PLC

Claimant/applicant

Mihir Mehta

First Defendant/respondent

Purnima Mehta

Second Defendant/respondent

Mona Mehta

Third Defendant/respondent

Manisha Mehta

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Jayam Diamonds International PTE Ltd

Fifth Defendant/respondent

Diamond Capital Investments PTE Ltd

Sixth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (freezing Injunction) / Adjourned Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against Mona Mehta should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order against Mihir Mehta should be continued
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Mihir Mehta as heir and guarantor

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank failed to establish a good arguable case against Mona Mehta because the evidence showed that shares in the Kamala Samir Co-operative Housing Society are immoveable property under Indian law, so Mona's actions did not amount to tacit acceptance of her father's Belgian estate. There was also insufficient evidence of risk of dissipation by Mona. Therefore, the freezing order against Mona must be discharged. In contrast, the Bank established a good arguable case against Mihir Mehta both as heir and as guarantor, and there was a real risk of dissipation due to his recent conviction for dishonesty and other conduct. The English court had jurisdiction over Mihir under Article 8(1) of...

Court Disposition

Freezing order against Mona Mehta discharged; freezing order against Mihir Mehta continued.

Orders

  • The freezing order against Mona Mehta is discharged.
  • The freezing order against Mihir Mehta shall continue.