LITT
Try LITT free
MORGAN STANLEY & CO INTERNATIONAL PLC v MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2009] DIFC CFI 019 — Judicial sanction of a financial business transfer (31 August 2009)
The lawsuit concerned the internal restructuring of Morgan Stanley’s operations within the Dubai International Financial Centre. Specifically, the claimants sought a court order to facilitate the "PWM Business Transfer," which involved moving the entirety of the Private Wealth Management business…
CANARA BANK v DR BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2021] DIFC CFI 018 — Default judgment for USD 24.4 million (05 August 2021)
The lawsuit concerns a substantial debt recovery claim brought by Canara Bank (DIFC Branch) against Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. The claimant sought to recover a total sum of USD 24,406,037.41, which represents a combination of the principal amount outstanding as of January 2021 and accrued…
DELOITTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v ABWAB REAL ESTATE LIMITED CO [2020] DIFC CFI 018 — Finality of litigation and the high threshold for reopening appeals (26 November 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance reinforces the principle of finality in litigation, dismissing an attempt to reopen a final appellate decision by clarifying that RDC r. 44.154 is not a mechanism for litigants to correct strategic failures or introduce new arguments that could have been raised…
DELOITTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v ZMZ INVESTMENTS [2020] DIFC CFI 018 — Dismissal of Appeal Notice (25 August 2020)
The litigation between Deloitte Professional Services and ZMZ Investments involves a dispute where the Second Defendant, ZMZ Investments, sought to challenge a prior determination through the formal submission of an Appeal Notice.
DELOITTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v ABWAB REAL ESTATE LIMITED CO [2019] DIFC CFI 018 — Narrowing the scope of document disclosure (20 November 2019)
The dispute arises from a broader commercial claim initiated by Deloitte Professional Services (DIFC) Limited against three defendants: Abwab Real Estate Limited Co LLC, ZMZ Investments LLC, and Al Barari Development Company.
JOHN VITALO v ATLAS MARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES [2020] DIFC CFI 018 — Consent order resolving costs liabilities (12 August 2020)
The litigation between John Vitalo and Atlas Mara Management Services Limited originated as a high-stakes employment or commercial dispute that saw the Claimant, John Vitalo, face multiple adverse costs rulings.
JOHN VITALO v ATLAS MARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES [2019] DIFC CFI 018 — Stay of costs pending appeal (11 November 2019)
The dispute arises from the underlying judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani on 5 September 2019. Following the court's initial determination, the Claimant, John Vitalo, sought to challenge the findings by filing a "Permission Application" on 26 September 2019.
JOHN VITALO v ATLAS MARA MANAGEMENT SERVICES [2018] DIFC CFI 018 — Judicial intervention in document production (28 August 2018)
This Order clarifies the Court’s role in resolving discovery disputes under RDC Part 28, mandating specific document production timelines for the parties.
EMIRATES REIT v CAMBRIDGE MIDDLE EAST INTERIORS [2017] DIFC CFI 018 — Consent order staying proceedings (23 November 2017)
The litigation involved a claim brought by Emirates REIT (CEIC) Limited against Cambridge Middle East Interiors LLC. While the specific nature of the underlying commercial disagreement—typically involving construction contracts, fit-out agreements, or service delivery disputes common to the DIFC…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2019] DIFC CFI 018 — Order of Discontinuance (28 July 2019)
The final resolution of the long-standing litigation between Standard Chartered Bank and FAL Oil Company Limited, concluding with a formal notice of discontinuance filed by the Claimant.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2019] DIFC CFI 018 — Assessment of costs and interest liability (11 July 2019)
The dispute centers on the final assessment of costs arising from the procedural skirmishes in the enforcement proceedings initiated by Standard Chartered Bank against FAL Oil Company.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2019] DIFC CFI 018 — Procedural extension for Particulars of Claim (20 June 2019)
The litigation under case number CFI-018-2016 involves a high-stakes banking dispute initiated by Standard Chartered Bank against FAL Oil Company Limited and Investment Group Private Limited.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 018 — Denial of permission to appeal regarding alternative service and jurisdiction (30 August 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the validity of email-based alternative service and confirms the breadth of its jurisdiction over DIFC-based financial institutions, rejecting an attempt to challenge the court's authority.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2018] DIFC CFI 018 — Dismissal of jurisdictional challenge and service set-aside application (11 June 2018)
The litigation arose from a massive banking dispute involving five separate financial facilities agreements. Standard Chartered Bank initiated the claim against Fal Oil Company Limited and Investment Group Private Limited, seeking to recover a principal sum exceeding USD 187 million.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v FAL OIL COMPANY [2017] DIFC CFI 018 — Default judgment for USD 65.5 million (09 July 2017)
The lawsuit involved a significant banking and finance claim brought by Standard Chartered Bank against Fal Oil Company Limited and Investment Group Private Limited. The dispute centered on the recovery of a substantial debt, which had ballooned to over USD 65 million by May 2017 due to the…
OZAN KALEMDAROGLU v GMG (DUBAI) LTD [2015] DIFC CFI 018 — Pre-action disclosure of financial data in employment disputes (06 October 2015)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for pre-action disclosure, affirming that former employees may compel the production of sensitive financial records to quantify commission claims.
OZAN KALEMDAROGLU v GMG [2015] DIFC CFI 018 — Procedural consent order for document production (03 August 2015)
The litigation in CFI 018/2015 centers on a Part 8 claim initiated by the Claimant, Ozan Kalemdaroglu, against the Defendant, GMG (Dubai) Ltd. Unlike a standard Part 7 claim, which typically involves disputed facts requiring a full trial, this action was specifically framed as a request for the…
KISHANCHAND GANGARAM BHATIA v ICICI BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 018 — Final order of discontinuance (23 April 2015)
The litigation initiated by Kishanchand Gangaram Bhatia against ICICI Bank Limited centered on allegations of investment misrepresentation. The Claimant sought legal recourse within the DIFC Courts, asserting that the Defendant had failed in its duties regarding the management and disclosure of…
KISHANCHAND GANGARAM BHATIA v ICICI BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 018 — Costs allocation for unsuccessful amendment applications (31 March 2015)
The litigation involved a dispute between Kishanchand Gangaram Bhatia and ICICI Bank Limited, centered on the Claimant’s attempt to amend his particulars of claim. Following the Court’s December 2014 ruling, which granted the Claimant permission to amend his pleadings—albeit with certain…
KISHANCHAND GANGARAM BHATIA v ICICI BANK [2015] DIFC CFI 018 — Procedural joinder and the preservation of limitation defenses (12 February 2015)
The litigation, initiated by Mr. Kishanchand Gangaram Bhatia against ICICI Bank, centers on a banking dispute within the DIFC. While the underlying merits of the claim remain to be fully ventilated, the procedural posture of the case shifted significantly in early 2015 when the original claimant…
KISHANCHAND GANGARAM BHATIA v ICICI BANK [2014] DIFC CFI 018 — Judicial discretion on amending pleadings post-disclosure (17 December 2014)
The Court of First Instance clarifies the threshold for amending pleadings following document disclosure, while strictly limiting the application of the Implied Terms in Contracts and Unfair Terms Law.
ICICI Bank Limited v Mr Kishanchand Gangaram Bhatia [2014] DIFC CFI 018 — Jurisdiction and limitation in investment misrepresentation claims (30 October 2014)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that statutory limitation periods act as procedural defenses rather than jurisdictional bars, while affirming that non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses do not automatically oust the Court’s authority.
INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v OMAN INSURANCE COMPANY [2013] DIFC CFI 018 — Discontinuance by consent (20 November 2013)
The litigation involved a complex multi-party structure, with five distinct entities under the International General Insurance (IGI) banner—including the UK limited entity, the Labuan branch, the holding company, and the Dubai-based subsidiary—acting as Claimants against the Respondent, Oman…
DIWAN CAPITAL LIMITED v DIWAN CAPITAL AG [2014] DIFC CFI 018 — Liquidator ratification of unauthorized procedural acts (27 May 2014)
The litigation centers on the procedural legitimacy of an appeal initiated by the former CEO of Diwan Capital Limited against a judgment previously rendered by the Small Claims Tribunal. Following an extraordinary general meeting, the company had entered into members' voluntary liquidation.