Gupta & Anor v Union Bank of India & Ors

Where a dispute concerns assets, title or trust property situated abroad, the court should identify the forum with the most real and substantial connection to the dispute. A stay may be granted where the foreign forum is clearly more appropriate, unless the claimant shows that substantial justice cannot be obtained there.

An English grant of probate ordinarily vests only property situated in England. Title to assets outside England is governed by the law of the place where they are situated, and recovery of those assets is a matter for that country’s courts. A stay leaves the proceedings in existence and may be reviewed if circumstances materially change.

The claimants brought two Part 8 claims against an Indian bank, its branch manager and other defendants. The first claim concerned bank accounts held in India by the first claimant’s deceased father. The second concerned trust properties and alleged dealings with those properties in India.

The defendants sought orders concerning service out of the jurisdiction and a stay on forum grounds. The central questions were whether the claims were properly constituted, whether the claimants had title to sue, whether India was the natural forum, and whether substantial justice could be obtained there.

1. Stay of proceedings. Both claims were stayed as against the first and second defendants. India was the natural forum because the disputes concerned Indian bank accounts, Indian trust property, Indian law, local parties and questions of title and beneficial ownership. The burden lay on the bank to show that India was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum.
2. Foreign assets and probate. An English grant of probate vested the executor with title to property situated in England, but did not vest assets situated in India. Under private international law, title to assets was determined by the law of the place where the assets were situated. The claimant therefore required an Indian grant or other effective order if Indian law so required. Questions concerning succession, survivorship, beneficial interests and payment to the correct persons were best decided by the Indian courts.
3. Substantial justice. Delay, difficulty in obtaining an Indian grant and general concerns about the Indian legal system did not establish that substantial justice would be unavailable. The stay could be revisited if later developments showed that the Indian courts were unable to provide substantial justice.
4. Trust-property claim. The trust was created in India, concerned Indian property and referred to Indian legislation. The claimants had not shown that the proceedings were properly constituted or that they held title to sue. Those matters, and the allegations concerning sale, occupation and proceeds, were substantially connected with India.
5. Jurisdiction and costs. The claim against the second defendant was set aside because England was not the natural forum. The court did not determine domicile and considered the service-out gateways against the manager unclear. The successful defendants recovered assessed costs of £29,442.66, payable within four weeks.