- Defective service and jurisdictional disputes (Bank of Baroda v Nawany)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What were the facts?
- What were the main legal arguments arising?
- Did the court have jurisdiction when there was defective service?
- Was a challenge to the courts' jurisdiction under Part 11 the correct approach to deal with defective service?
- Did the acknowledgements of service waive the defective service?
- Could defective service be cured under CPR 3.10, the general power of the court to rectify matters where there has been an error of procedure?
- Were the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI 2002) proceedings brought by the claimant?
- Did the claimants make an election for Indian court jurisdiction?
- Was India the most appropriate forum to hear the dispute?
- Should the court apply a case management stay?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court has refused to dismiss a case on the basis of defective service, considering that it was a procedural error which could be cured under CPR 3.10. The bulk of the judgment addresses the issue of whether debt recovery proceedings in the Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) constituted judicial proceedings and whether under Indian law they had been commenced by the English claimants or defendants. Of interest will be the obiter consideration when a party could be considered to have made an election to change the jurisdiction provided for in a jurisdiction clause.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial