Major Setback for Mehul Choksi as UK Court Strikes Out Claim Over Failure to Pay Security for Costs

London: The UK High Court has struck out fugitive diamantaire Mehul Choksi's civil claim arising from his alleged 2021 abduction after he failed to comply with a court order requiring him to provide £677,000 as security for the defendants' legal costs.

The King's Bench Division issued a consent order on 20 July 2026, striking out Choksi's claims against Gurdip Bath, Leslie Farrow-Guy, Gurmit Singh and Gurjit Singh Bhandal. The order followed Choksi's failure to comply with the security for costs order made by Mr Justice Mansfield on 6 February 2026, and reaffirmed by a subsequent order dated 13 February 2026.

The court also ordered Choksi to pay the legal costs incurred by the four defendants. Those costs will be assessed on the standard basis, with the reasonable and proportionate amount to be determined by a costs officer.

As a consequence of the strike-out, the one-day hearing previously scheduled before Mr Justice Mansfield on 29 July 2026 has been vacated. In addition, an order made by Mr Justice Dexter Dias on 18 May 2026 has been set aside.

The decision effectively brings an end to the substantive part of Choksi's legal action before the English courts.

Choksi, who is wanted in India in connection with the multi-billion-pound Punjab National Bank fraud, alleged that he was abducted from Antigua on 23 May 2021, assaulted and forcibly transported by boat to Dominica as part of a conspiracy he claimed was orchestrated from England. He brought proceedings against the Government of India and five individual defendants.

The case suffered a significant setback in February 2026 when Mr Justice Mansfield ordered Choksi to provide security for the defendants' legal costs before the proceedings could continue. In his judgment, the court found that Choksi's allegations relied predominantly on circumstantial evidence and noted the absence of independent witness testimony supporting his claims of kidnapping and assault.

In his judgment dated 6 February 2026, Mr Justice Mansfield stated, "There is no direct evidence of that. It is argued that it is plain as a matter of inference, given that the relevant Defendants are resident in England, and flew together to Antigua."

The judge further said,"Further, unsurprisingly, there is no witness evidence as to the kidnapping and assault of the Claimant, other than that of the Claimant himself. As is typical of conspiracy cases, much of the evidence is circumstantial and the existence and detail of the conspiracy is said to arise as a matter of inference."

Justice Mansfield also found that the Antiguan police report and the statement of a private investigator relied upon by Choksi were based largely on second-hand information. He additionally referred to judgments of the Belgian courts, including the Court of Cassation, which similarly concluded that there was no evidence that Choksi had been abducted by individuals acting on behalf of the Indian state.

Although Choksi sought £200,000 in damages, the court required him to provide £677,000 as security for the defendants' legal costs. His failure to comply with that order ultimately resulted in his claims being struck out.

The ruling is expected to be viewed as a significant legal victory for the defendants, who have consistently denied any involvement in Choksi's alleged abduction.The proceedings also saw Choksi publicly accuse the governments of Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica of being complicit in his alleged kidnapping. However, the English court noted that no such claims had been formally pleaded against either government. Both Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica have repeatedly maintained that Choksi's kidnapping allegations were advanced as part of an effort to frustrate his extradition to India, where he remains wanted on charges relating to major financial crimes.

Choksi continues to face extradition proceedings in Belgium following his arrest there in 2025. He is also challenging his designation as a Fugitive Economic Offender before the Indian courts.