Sharma v Mundath [2018] NZHC 940 (3 May 2018)

Last Updated: 8 June 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-572 [2018] NZHC 940

BETWEEN	DATA RAM SHARMA AND GANESH DIXIT First Plaintiff (plaintiff parties continued over)
AND	MUJEEB RAHIMAN MUNDATH First Defendant (defendant parties continued over)

Hearing:	On papers
Appearances:	B O’Callahan and J Ding for the Plaintiffs No appearance for the Defendants
Judgment:	3 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on

03.05.18 at 5 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date...............

Solicitors/Counsel:

K3 Legal Ltd, Auckland

SHARMA & ORS v MUNDATH & ORS [2018] NZHC 940 [3 May 2018]

(plaintiff parties continued)


AND BIKANER FOODS MT ROSKILL LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

JAYA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Third Plaintiff

WIANZ SERVICES LIMITED
Fourth Plaintiff

TRAVELLERS INN LIMITED
Fifth Plaintiff

V AND A LIMITED
Sixth Plaintiff

VR ROTORUA LIMITED
Seventh Plaintiff

V AND A 2012 LIMITED
Eighth Plaintiff

VINDOD KUMAR SHARMA
Ninth Plaintiff

BIKANER FOODS 2010 NZ LIMITED
Tenth Plaintiff

BIKANER FOODS NZ LIMITED
Eleventh Plaintiff

CAMELOT HOTEL LIMITED
Twelfth Plaintiff

GATEWAY MOTEL LIMITED
Thirteenth Plaintiff

M AND RA LIMITED
Fourteenth Plaintiff

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA AND MADHU SHARMA
Fifteenth Plaintiff
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA AND MADHU SHARMA
Sixteenth Plaintiff

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ROGER CHI
Seventeenth Plaintiff

SMARTBUY SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Eighteenth Plaintiff

TRAVELLERS INN RECEIVERSHIP LIMITED
Nineteenth Plaintiff

VR GROUP LIMITED
Twentieth Plaintiff

VR HAMILTON BACKPACKERS LIMITED
Twenty-First Plaintiff

VR HAMILTON LIMITED
Twenty-Second Plaintiff

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA
Twenty-Third Plaintiff

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND SUDHA SHARMA
Twenty-Fourth Plaintiff

ANKUR ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Twenty-Fifth Plaintiff

BIKANER FOODS METRO LIMITED
Twenty-Sixth Plaintiff

NINETY FIVE NZ LIMITED
Twenty-Seventh Plaintiff

AMAZON NZ LIMITED
Twenty-Eighth Plaintiff

M & A LIMITED
Twenty-Ninth Plaintiff

TE ATATU DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Thirtieth Plaintiff
ANKUR INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Thirty-First Plaintiff


(defendant parties continued)

AND MOHAMMED HAFIZ
Second Defendant

M H TRADING & CONSULTING LIMITED
Third Defendant



[1] The plaintiffs have previously applied for and obtained without notice freezing orders and ancillary orders against the defendants.

[2] The orders were initially made by Woolford J on 6 April 2018. With some amendments, these were continued by Palmer J on 11 April 2018 and subsequently confirmed in a judgment issued by Palmer J on 13 April 2018. Both Woolford J and Palmer J concluded that the plaintiffs have a good arguable case against the defendant and there is a substantial risk the defendants and potential defendants will dissipate their assets or remove them from New Zealand.

[3] The plaintiffs have now filed an application to amend the freezing orders and ancillary orders and also apply for an order for substituted service against the first defendant.

[4] The applications for amendments to the freezing orders and ancillary orders arise as a result of the information that has already been obtained from the banks and other institutions subject to the original orders. That information has established that there are a wide range of other accounts being used by the defendants and as a result wider freezing and ancillary orders are required.

[5] Having considered the supporting affidavits I am satisfied that it is appropriate on a without notice basis to extend the freezing orders and ancillary orders as sought. I note that at the present time the orders are in any event only to remain in place until 11 May 2018 as the first call of the substantive proceedings will occur in the Duty Judge list in Auckland on 9 May 2018.

[6] I also consider the application for substituted service should be granted. The plaintiffs’ enquiries have shown that the first defendant appears to have left New Zealand, travelling initially to Australia and later to Korea. The plaintiffs have identified an email address which he appears to be utilising and in addition have established that the first defendant has instructed solicitors in Australia to represent
him in related proceedings and it is accordingly appropriate that service be effected through these media.

[7] I accordingly grant the interlocutory application without notice to amend freezing and ancillary orders and the application without notice for substituted service on the first defendant, in terms of the draft orders filed with the application. Costs on the application are reserved.











Powell J