Aditya Khanna & Anor v Navin Khanna & Ors

Aditya Khanna & Anor v Navin Khanna & Ors

The cumulative effect of a near 12-month delay, the presence of multiple defendants already served, and D1's technical conduct to avoid service, though not evasion, constituted exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify alternative service by email in India, outweighing the comity concerns under the Hague...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Aditya Khanna; Claimant: Vinita Singh; Defendant: Navin Khanna; Defendant: Rahul Khanna; Defendant: Hawk Wings Holdings Limited; Defendant: Victoria Road Investments Limited; Defendant: Ennismore Property Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Appeal and Set Aside of Order for Alternative Service
Outcome
Applications dismissed; order for alternative service by email in India upheld; extension of time for D2's Defence dismissed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Hague Service Convention, Comity, Trusts and Breach of Trust, Delay in Litigation
Civil Procedure Trusts Property Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Alternative Service Hague Service Convention Comity Trusts and Breach of Trust +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aditya Khanna

Claimant

Vinita Singh

Claimant

Navin Khanna

Defendant

Rahul Khanna

Defendant

Hawk Wings Holdings Limited

Defendant

Victoria Road Investments Limited

Defendant

Ennismore Property Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Appeal and Set Aside of Order for Alternative Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order permitting service in India by email should be set aside or upheld
  2. 2 Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying alternative service under CPR 6.15 and 6.37(5)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the Master had power to grant alternative service by email absent expert evidence on Indian law

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of a near 12-month delay, the presence of multiple defendants already served, and D1's technical conduct to avoid service, though not evasion, constituted exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify alternative service by email in India, outweighing the comity concerns under the Hague Service Convention.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; order for alternative service by email in India upheld; extension of time for D2's Defence dismissed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to set aside order for service by email dismissed
  • Application to extend time for D2's Defence dismissed