Latest articles
AL EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO LTD v SEED MENA BUSINESSMEN SERVICES [2022] DIFC CFI 034 — Consent order revising trial scheduling and document filing deadlines (21 April 2022)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Al Eatesam Modern Marketing Co Ltd (trading as Secutronic), and the Defendant, Seed Mena Businessmen Services LLC. While the substantive merits of the claim remain pending, the procedural history of the case indicates a complex…
AL EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO LTD v SEED MENA BUSINESSMEN SERVICES [2022] DIFC CFI 034 — Revision of Case Management Order (31 March 2022)
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between Al Eatesam Modern Marketing Co Ltd (trading as Secutronic) and Seed Mena Businessmen Services LLC. The matter reached a critical juncture during a Progress Monitoring Hearing, where the court addressed the claimant’s attempt to introduce additional…
AL-EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO. v SEED MENA BUSINESS SERVICES [2021] DIFC CFI 034 — Denial of document production requests (26 October 2021)
The dispute centers on a procedural application for disclosure filed by the Defendant, Seed Mena Business Services LLC, against the Claimant, Al-Eatesam Modern Marketing Co. Ltd (trading as "Secutronic").
AL EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO LTD v SEED MENA BUSINESSMEN SERVICES [2021] DIFC CFI 034 — Case management order defining trial issues (25 October 2021)
The litigation centers on a multi-faceted commercial relationship between Al Eatesam Modern Marketing Co Ltd (trading as Secutronic) and Seed Mena Businessmen Services LLC. The dispute involves competing claims regarding the performance of various agreements, including a Cooperation Agreement, a…
AL EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO v SEED MENA BUSINESSMEN SERVICES [2021] DIFC CFI 034 — Procedural adjustment via consent order (29 August 2021)
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between Al Eatesam Modern Marketing Co (trading as “Secutronic”) and Seed Mena Businessmen Services LLC. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain pending, the immediate procedural impasse concerned the preparation for the Case Management…
AL-EATESAM MODERN MARKETING CO v SEED MENA BUSINESSMEN SERVICES [2021] DIFC CFI 034 — Service by publication order (28 March 2021)
The lawsuit involves a claim initiated by Al-Eatesam Modern Marketing Co (trading as Secutronic) against Seed Mena Businessmen Services. The core of the dispute centers on the Claimant’s inability to effectuate service of the Claim Form through conventional means, necessitating an application for…
PRIYA HIRANANDANI-VANDREVALA v DARSHAN HIRANANDANI [2017] DIFC CFI 034 — Consent order discharging freezing injunction following foreign security deposit (01 February 2017)
The lawsuit centered on the Applicant’s efforts to enforce an arbitral award dated 18 May 2016 against the Respondent, Darshan Hiranandani. To protect the potential fruits of this enforcement, the Applicant secured a Freezing Order and a Provision of Information Order from the DIFC Court on 6…
DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH v GFH CAPITAL [2015] DIFC CFI 034 — Strike out of employment and share transfer claims (14 May 2015)
The litigation centered on a dispute regarding employment benefits, specifically share transfers and bonus payments allegedly owed to the Claimant, David Lawrence Haigh. The Claimant asserted that he was entitled to shares under an agreement with the Defendants and sought damages for an alleged…
DAVID LAWRENCE HAIGH v GFH CAPITAL [2015] DIFC CFI 034 — Procedural rejection of default judgment (18 January 2015)
David Lawrence Haigh initiated proceedings against GFH Capital Limited and Hisham Al Rayes under claim number CFI 034/2014. On 15 January 2015, the Claimant filed a formal request for a default judgment, asserting that the procedural conditions for such an order had been met.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2019] DIFC CFI 034 — Consent order dismissing the Claimants' April 2019 application (08 July 2019)
A procedural resolution in the long-standing dispute regarding real estate development obligations in the DIFC.
Amit Dattani v Damac Park Towers Company [2014] DIFC CFI 034 — Consent order for real estate contract damages (30 December 2014)
The litigation involved four claimants seeking recovery of funds from Damac Park Towers Company Limited, formerly trading as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited. The dispute centered on contractual obligations related to property investments within the DIFC jurisdiction.
DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY v DATTANI [2014] DIFC CFI 034 — Permission to appeal regarding SPA construction and procedural fairness (01 December 2014)
Justice Roger Giles clarifies the threshold for appellate intervention in DIFC real estate disputes, granting partial leave to appeal against Chief Justice Michael Hwang’s judgment concerning the termination of Sale and Purchase Agreements.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2012] DIFC CFI 034 — Real estate developer liability for delayed handover (20 July 2014)
The dispute centered on the failure of Damac Park Towers Company to deliver possession and occupation of an apartment and a retail unit within the Park Towers development. The Claimants—Amit Dattani, Nitin Jobanputra, Masood ur Rahman, and Shemhon Iftakhar—argued that the developer breached the…
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — Procedural extension for closing submissions (19 December 2013)
The litigation under case number CFI 034/2012 involves a multi-party claim brought by Amit Dattani, Nitin Jobanputra, Masood Ur Rahman, and Shemhon Iftakhar against Damac Park Towers Company Limited, which was previously known as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — Pre-trial procedural directions for real estate litigation (21 October 2013)
The litigation involves four individual claimants—Mr. Amit Dattani, Mr. Nitin Jobanputra, Mr. Masood Ur Rahman, and Mr. Shemhon Iftakhar—who have initiated proceedings against Damac Park Towers Company Limited, formerly known as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2012] DIFC CFI 034 — Immediate judgment denied due to disputed termination notices (20 October 2013)
The dispute centers on two consolidated claims involving residential and retail property purchase agreements within the DIFC. The Claimants alleged that the developer, Damac Park Towers Company, failed to deliver the units by the contractually mandated completion dates, thereby triggering a right…
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — procedural finality in real estate litigation (14 March 2013)
The litigation involves a consolidated claim brought by four individual claimants—Amit Dattani, Nitin Jobanputra, Masood Ur Rahman, and Shemhon Iftakhar—against Damac Park Towers Company Limited, formerly known as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited.
MR AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — Case Management Order (19 February 2013)
This Case Management Order establishes the procedural roadmap for a multi-party real estate dispute, mandating strict adherence to disclosure and expert evidence timelines to facilitate a November 2013 trial.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — Consolidation of real estate investor claims (05 February 2013)
The dispute concerns a series of claims brought by individual investors—Amit Dattani, Nitin Jobanputra, Masood Ur Rahman, and Shemhon Iftakhar—against Damac Park Towers Company Limited, an entity previously known as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited.
AMIT DATTANI v DAMAC PARK TOWERS COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 034 — procedural consolidation and withdrawal of jurisdiction challenge (06 January 2013)
The litigation, initiated by Mr. Amit Dattani and Mr. Nitin Jobanputra, centered on a dispute with Damac Park Towers Company Limited, formerly known as Damac Real Estate Asset Management Company Limited.
HOPKINS ARCHITECTS DUBAI v DUBAI PROPERTIES [2011] DIFC CFI 034 — Discontinuation of cross-claims via consent order (17 August 2011)
The litigation involved a commercial dispute between Hopkins Architects Dubai and Dubai Properties, which had escalated to the point of a formal claim and a subsequent counterclaim. While the specific underlying contractual grievances—likely relating to architectural services, project delivery, or…
HOPKINS ARCHITECTS DUBAI v DUBAI PROPERTIES [2011] DIFC CFI 034 — Consent Order vacating trial and staying proceedings (29 March 2011)
The litigation involved a commercial dispute between Hopkins Architects Dubai Ltd and Dubai Properties LLC, centering on contractual obligations within the construction and design sector.
HOPKINS ARCHITECTS DUBAI v DUBAI PROPERTIES [2009] DIFC CFI 034 — Dismissal of procedural application (20 January 2011)
The litigation between Hopkins Architects Dubai and Dubai Properties represents a commercial dispute arising within the DIFC jurisdiction, centered on contractual obligations and professional services provided by the claimant.
HOPKINS ARCHITECTS DUBAI v DUBAI PROPERTIES [2010] DIFC CFI 034 — Stay of counterclaims pending third-party liability (28 October 2010)
The dispute in CFI 034/2009 centers on a construction-related contractual disagreement between the claimant, Hopkins Architects Dubai Ltd, and the defendant, Dubai Properties LLC. The litigation reached a procedural juncture where the parties sought to manage the scope of the ongoing proceedings…