Kontiki Finance Limited v Nishant Maharaj trading as Vee N Vee Shopping Centre

• Jurisdiction: Fiji
• Court: High Court (Fiji)
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2025
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. HBC 313 of 2019
• Date: 19 December 2025
• Counsel: Mr K Goundar & Ms K Chand for the Plaintiff,Mr N Sharma & Mr P Kumar for the Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No. HBC 313 of 2019

Between:

Kontiki Finance Limited

Plaintiff

v.

Nishant Maharaj trading as Vee N Vee Shopping Centre

Defendant

Hearing Date: 23 April 20251

Judgment: 19 December 2025

Counsel:

Mr K Goundar & Ms K Chand for the Plaintiff

Mr N Sharma & Mr P Kumar for the Defendant

Solicitors:

Kumar Goundar Lawyers for Plaintiff

Kumar Legal for Defendant

JUDGMENT

(on interlocutory applications for discovery and to set aside a mareva injunction)

[1] There are two applications before the Court, being:

• i. An application by the plaintiff for specific discovery.

• ii. An application by the defendant to set aside a Mareva Injunction.

¹ The plaintiff filed supplementary submissions on 25 June 2025.

[2] Each application is opposed by the other party.

Background

[3] The background is set out in my earlier decision issued on 2 September 2024. Briefly:

• • The plaintiff provided a loan to the defendant in January 2016 in the amount of $97,527.72.

• • The defendant was required to make repayments of $2,844.88 per month but fell into arrears. Three vehicles, which were secured against the loan, were seized by the plaintiff and sold. Despite this, there remained a debt owing by the defendant to the plaintiff.

• • The plaintiff commenced the present proceedings against the defendant in September 2019 to recover the outstanding debt. The amount then allegedly owing was $174,204.81, being the outstanding arrears plus interest.

• • To safeguard its position, the plaintiff sought interim orders against the defendant, including a Mareva Injunction and a Writ Ne Exeat Civitate. An order was made by the court in late September 2019, restraining the defendant from leaving Fiji. As the defendant did not file a defence, default judgment was entered for the plaintiff on 29 October 2019.

• • By an oversight, the defendant was able to leave the country on 21 January 2020.

• • There were settlement discussions between the parties in late 2019 and early 20202 which resulted in an agreement. Mansoor J made the following orders by consent on 29 April 2020:

  • 1. An injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendant from leaving the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court until determination of the herein proceedings.

  • 2. An injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendant from selling and/or disposing of and/or dealing with and/or removing from the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court any and all assets and monies of the Defendant.

  • 3. The Defendant file a full statement of his assets wherever located with this Honourable Court within fourteen (14) days of service of the order.

  • 4. That a Writ of Ne Exeat Civitate shall be issued forthwith commanding and conveying the Defendant forthwith before a Judge of this Honourable Court unless the Defendant shall deposit a sum deemed appropriate by the Honourable Court or surrender their passport and travelling documents and/or give to the Plaintiff a Bond executed by the Defendant for security satisfactory to the Plaintiff that the Defendant will not leave this jurisdiction without notice to this Honourable Court.

  • …

  • 7. The Defendant is directed to make fortnightly payment of $1,000 (one thousand dollars) to the Plaintiff until settlement figure is reached.

² The defendant was represented by previous solicitors who appeared for him at the court fixtures and were involved in the negotiations on his behalf.

• • The defendant made some repayment as per the consent order. It appears that the amount of $112,733.05 has been repaid.

• • The defendant instructed his present solicitors in 2022. There followed an application to set aside the 2019 default judgement. Mansoor J issued a Ruling on 5 January 2024 granting the application. The learned Judge noted that the defendant relied on section 70 of the Consumer Credit Act 1999 to support a defence that the loan was unjust. The plaintiff argued that the Act did not apply as the loan fell outside the ambit of the legislation, being entirely for business purposes and not personal use. Mansoor J stated at 15:

  … it would be proper to allow the [defendant's] application especially for two reasons in the context of this case. Firstly, in settling a sum of $112,733.05, the defendant has repaid the plaintiff a substantial sum. In submissions, the plaintiff does not dispute this claim. The defendant contests the amount he is alleged to owe the bank. Secondly, there is the question whether the transaction is governed by the Consumer Credit Act. On the pleadings, it would appear to be so. This is an important consideration, which, it may be more appropriate to decide after a trial so that the evidence of the parties can be considered. The application is allowed under Order 13 rule 10 of the High Court Rules.

• • On 22 January 2024, the defendant filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff is in breach of sections 70 and 76 of the Consumer Credit Act and that the loan is unjust. The allegations by the defendant include unequal bargaining power and an excessive interest rate of 24.68% per annum. The defendant seeks orders that the loan be set aside and he also claims damages.

• • The plaintiff filed a reply and defence to the counterclaim on 2 May 2024. The plaintiff's position includes that the Consumer Credit Act does not operate as the defendant has predominantly used the loan for...