LITT
Try LITT free
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural directions for Application Notice 52/2010 (15 July 2010)
The litigation between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments, filed under case number CFI 008/2010, represents a general commercial dispute brought before the DIFC Court of First Instance.
BISHER BARAZI v DIFC INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural extension for responsive pleadings (04 July 2010)
The dispute between Bisher Barazi and DIFC Investments involves the exchange of pleadings in the Court of First Instance. Following the filing of a Defence and a Counterclaim by the Defendant, the Claimant, Bisher Barazi, found himself unable to meet the original procedural deadline for submitting…
BISHER BARAZI v DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE INVESTMENTS [2010] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural compliance in default judgment applications (27 May 2010)
The dispute arose when Bisher Barazi filed a request for default judgment on 13 May 2010, asserting that the defendant, Dubai International Financial Centre Investments, had failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limits.
DENTON WILDE SAPTE & CO v ULTRA FUJI ELEVATOR INTERNATIONAL ELEVATORS & ESCALATORS LLC [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Default judgment for unpaid legal fees (01 February 2009)
The dispute centered on a claim for unpaid professional fees brought by the international law firm Denton Wilde Sapte & Co against Ultra Fuji Elevator International Elevators & Escalators LLC.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Adjournment of committal proceedings and examination of third parties (08 June 2009)
This order addresses the procedural management of enforcement proceedings, specifically the adjournment of the examination of Sarah Decker and the continued suspension of a previously issued Committal Order.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Committal Order and electronic service protocols (14 May 2009)
Justice Sir Anthony Colman issues a suspended committal order against Sarah Decker, reinforcing the Court’s authority to compel compliance through personal attendance and modern service methods.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Compelling director disclosure for judgment enforcement (22 April 2009)
Following the judgment debt established in November 2008, the Claimant, Ithmar Capital, sought the assistance of the Court to uncover the financial means of the First Defendant, 8 Investment Inc.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Contempt of court and the lifting of a suspended committal order (11 March 2009)
The lawsuit originated as a commercial dispute involving Ithmar Capital and the defendants, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investments Group FZE. As the litigation progressed, the court issued a suspended Committal Order on 25 February 2009, intended to compel compliance with specific court directives.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Committal for contempt and enforcement of disclosure obligations (23 February 2009)
The DIFC Court of First Instance exercises its coercive powers to enforce judgment disclosure requirements against a recalcitrant officer, issuing a suspended committal order to compel compliance.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural conditions for withdrawal of legal representation (09 February 2009)
The litigation between Ithmar Capital and the defendants, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investments Group FZE, reached a procedural impasse in early 2009 regarding legal representation. JSA Law, acting for the 1st Defendant, filed an application on 25 January 2009 to cease acting for their client.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Enforcement of judgment through examination of means (25 January 2009)
This order mandates the attendance of a company representative for an examination of means and imposes a significant interim payment obligation to facilitate the enforcement of a prior judgment.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Enforcement of judgment and third-party examination (22 January 2009)
Ithmar Capital, having secured a judgment against 8 Investment Inc on 24 November 2008, encountered significant difficulties in identifying and locating assets sufficient to satisfy the debt.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Judicial intervention in case management and settlement timelines (20 January 2009)
The litigation in CFI 008/2007 involved a complex set of applications brought by the Claimant, Ithmar Capital, against the Respondents, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investment Group FZE. By January 2009, the parties had reached a juncture where multiple outstanding applications required judicial…
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2009] DIFC CFI 008 — Procedural directions for witness examination (05 January 2009)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Ithmar Capital against two defendants, 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investment Group FZE. The matter reached a critical procedural juncture in late 2008, necessitating judicial intervention to manage the progression of evidence.
ITHMAR CAPITAL v 8 INVESTMENT [2008] DIFC CFI 008 — Final judgment and cost allocation (01 December 2008)
The litigation centered on a financial claim brought by Ithmar Capital against 8 Investment Inc and 8 Investment Group FZE. The dispute reached a definitive stage on 25 November 2008, when the Court addressed the final quantum of the debt owed by the First Defendant.
Ithmar Capital v 8 Investments Inc. and 8 Investment Group Fze [2007] DIFC CFI 008 — Breach of MOU and the limits of punitive damages (24 November 2008)
The dispute centered on an MOU dated 9 October 2007, under which 8 Investments Inc. (8II) agreed to assign its interest in a Unit Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) for office premises in Liberty House, DIFC, to Ithmar Capital for AED 27,647,200.
BIMAL GANDHI v MUHANAD HISHAM MOHAMMED AZZEH [2026] DIFC CFI 007 — Procedural timelines and RDC Part 19 requests (10 April 2026)
This order clarifies the limits of procedural delay in the DIFC Court of First Instance, specifically addressing whether a Request for Information (RFI) under RDC Part 19 can serve as a valid basis for extending deadlines to file a jurisdiction challenge or a Defence.
DP WORLD UAE v ENVIROSERVE SERVICES [2024] DIFC CFI 007 — Procedural amendments and alternative service protocols (26 February 2024)
The dispute in CFI 007/2023 involves a complex web of liability between the Claimant, DP World UAE, and the Defendant, Enviroserve Services L.L.C. As the litigation progressed, the Defendant sought to refine its legal position by amending its existing Amended Defence and Counterclaim.
DP WORLD UAE v ENVIROSERVE SERVICES [2023] DIFC CFI 007 — Consent order for procedural adjournment (06 September 2023)
The litigation, initiated via a Part 7 Claim Form on 24 January 2023, involves the Claimant, DP World UAE, and the Defendant, Enviroserve Services L.L.C. The proceedings also involve two third parties: International Shipping Bureau and Hijaz Fibreglass Bahraini Partnership (now trading as Hijaz…
MAHESH SRICHAND TOURANI v DUSTI LALICHAND MEHTANI TOURANI [2019] DIFC CFI 007 — Consent order quantifying final costs liability (04 March 2019)
The litigation between Mahesh Srichand Tourani and the Defendants, Dusti Lalichand Mehtani Tourani and Duzty LLC, culminated in a final determination of the costs liability owed by the Claimant.
MAHESH SRICHAND TOURANI v DUSTY LALICHAND MAHTANI TOURANI [2018] DIFC CFI 007 — Amended Disclosure Order (25 June 2018)
The litigation concerns a complex dispute between Mahesh Srichand Tourani and the defendants, Dusti Lalichand Mehtani Tourani and Duzty LLC. The core of this specific procedural skirmish involved the Claimant’s Request to Produce, which sought a wide array of documentation to substantiate his…
MAHESH SRICHAND TOURANI v DUSTI LALICHAND MEHTANI TOURANI [2018] DIFC CFI 007 — Amended Case Management Order (27 May 2018)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Mahesh Srichand Tourani, and the Defendants, Dusti Lalichand Mehtani Tourani and Duzty LLC. While the underlying substantive claims remain confidential within the court file, the procedural posture indicates a complex commercial or civil…
MAHESH SRICHAND TOURANI v DUSTI LALICHAND MEHTANI TOURANI [2018] DIFC CFI 007 — Case Management Order regarding amendment of pleadings (22 May 2018)
The litigation concerns a claim brought by Mahesh Srichand Tourani against Dusti Lalichand Mehtani Tourani and the corporate entity Duzty LLC. The dispute centers on the enforcement of a Loan Agreement, with the Claimant seeking to expand the scope of his legal arguments to include a claim for…
MAHESH SRICHAND TOURANI v DUSTI LALICHAND MEHTANI TOURANI [2018] DIFC CFI 007 — Procedural variation of court orders (10 April 2018)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Mahesh Srichand Tourani, and the Defendants, Dusti Lalichand Mehtani Tourani and Duzty LLC. The core of the matter concerns the Claimant’s compliance with procedural obligations, specifically the provision of information requested by the…