Latest articles
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural directions for trial readiness (08 June 2023)
Justice Sir Peter Gross issues a Further Ruling to safeguard the September 2023 trial date and refine document inspection protocols for the Fourth Defendant.
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Document production and forgery allegations (02 June 2023)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s refusal to produce certain documents requested by the first defendant (Neopharma LLC) and the fourth defendant (Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty). The defendants sought these materials to substantiate their respective defenses, with the fourth defendant specifically…
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural timeline adjustments via consent order (25 April 2023)
The lawsuit concerns a high-stakes banking and finance dispute involving Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) and several corporate entities associated with the NMC Healthcare group, alongside Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural extension for witness evidence (30 March 2023)
The litigation involves a high-stakes dispute between the Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) and multiple defendants, including Neopharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural extension for document production (03 March 2023)
The litigation in CFI 043/2020 involves a high-stakes financial claim brought by the Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) against a group of corporate entities and an individual, specifically Neopharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2023] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural extension for document production (16 January 2023)
The litigation under case number CFI 043/2020 involves the Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) as the Claimant, pursuing claims against a group of entities and an individual, namely Neopharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEOPHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Case Management Order (17 October 2022)
A comprehensive procedural roadmap establishing the trial timeline and disclosure obligations for the complex multi-party commercial dispute between Bank of Baroda and the Neopharma/NMC Healthcare group.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural extension for filing of Reply (17 June 2022)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Bank of Baroda and several entities, including Neo Pharma LLC and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. As the case progressed through the Court of First Instance, the parties reached a consensus regarding the timeline for the exchange of pleadings.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural timeline adjustment for complex multi-party litigation (13 May 2022)
The litigation involves a high-stakes claim initiated by Bank of Baroda against a series of corporate entities and an individual, specifically Neo Pharma LLC, NNMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Consent order for amendment of pleadings (29 March 2022)
The dispute involves Bank of Baroda and a group of corporate and individual respondents, including Neo Pharma LLC, NNMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Babaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Consent stay pending ADGM administration (16 December 2020)
The litigation initiated by Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) in May 2020 represented a high-stakes recovery effort against multiple defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Interim stay of proceedings pending ADGM administration (06 December 2020)
This consent order formalizes the stay of DIFC Court proceedings against NMC Healthcare and New Medical Centre following their transition into administration under the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) insolvency regime.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Amendment of pleadings for non-payment (18 August 2020)
The litigation involves a complex financial dispute between Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) and a group of corporate and individual defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr Babaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Alternative service via email (11 July 2020)
The litigation arises from a substantial financial dispute involving Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) as the Claimant and a group of corporate and individual defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Alternative service via email (08 June 2020)
The dispute arises from a banking relationship between the Claimant, Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch), and the Defendants, which include Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Suresh Kumar.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural non-compliance in pleading amendments (07 March 2020)
The dispute arose from the Claimant’s attempt to amend its Claim Form and Particulars of Claim to include allegations of non-payment. Bank of Baroda filed an application for an order without a hearing, but the application was fundamentally flawed.
ALIXPARTNERS UK LLP v PANTHER MEDIA GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural termination via notice of discontinuance (03 October 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the procedural closure of CFI 043/2019 following the Claimant’s unilateral decision to withdraw the claim.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Default costs assessment following failure to file points of dispute (18 December 2019)
The underlying litigation, registered under case number CFI-043-2017, involved the Claimants, Hepher Associates Ltd and Trevor Anscombe, and the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. Following a substantive judgment delivered by H.E.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural order for withdrawal of legal representation (04 March 2019)
The application filed on 4 March 2019 by Ahmed Bin Dhahi Advocates and Legal Consultants was a formal procedural step to terminate their role as the legal representative for the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO. [2018] DIFC CFI 043 — Case Management Order (01 November 2018)
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Hepher Associates Ltd., and the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in the procedural order, the court’s focus on expert evidence regarding "payments" and…
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES [2018] DIFC CFI 043 — Setting aside default judgment for a real prospect of success (30 April 2018)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hepher Associates Ltd and Trevor Anscombe against Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. The matter reached a critical juncture on 28 January 2018, when a default judgment was entered against the Defendant by Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser.
D'AMICO SHIPPING ITALIA SPA v ENDOFA DMCC [2017] DIFC CFI 043 — Stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (04 January 2017)
The dispute between D'Amico Shipping Italia Spa and Endofa DMCC centered on a classic conflict of jurisdiction between the DIFC Courts and the onshore Dubai Courts. D'Amico Shipping Italia Spa initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance, seeking to advance its claim through the DIFC…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural review of Assistant Registrar directions (23 October 2016)
The litigation arises from a long-standing dispute between the Claimant, DNB Bank ASA, and the Defendants, Gulf Eyadah Corporation and Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC. The immediate procedural conflict centered on an application filed by the Second Defendant, Gulf Navigation Holding, seeking a de novo…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Compelling disclosure from judgment debtors (08 September 2016)
DNB Bank ASA, acting as the Judgment Creditor, sought to pierce the veil of the Second Judgment Debtor’s financial opacity to facilitate the satisfaction of its judgment. The dispute centers on the bank's requirement to identify assets that could be subject to execution, given the apparent…