LITT
Try LITT free
IDBI BANK v MABANI DELMA GENERAL CONTRACTING CO [2019] DIFC CFI 070 — Procedural extension and service by publication (14 May 2019)
The litigation involves IDBI Bank Limited as the Claimant against Mabani Delma General Contracting Co LLC and several other parties. In the course of these proceedings, the Claimant encountered significant difficulties in serving the Claim Form upon the Third through Eighth Defendants.
KESHAV GLOBAL TRADING v ETG COMMODITIES HOLDINGS [2026] DIFC CFI 069 — Costs assessment following failed preliminary dismissal (19 January 2026)
The litigation, filed under claim number CFI 069/2024, centers on a commercial dispute between the Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, and the Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited.
KESHAV GLOBAL TRADING v ETG COMMODITIES HOLDINGS [2025] DIFC CFI 069 — Preliminary issue on banking facility closures (16 December 2025)
The central dispute in this matter concerns whether the Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, were forced to terminate their banking facilities due to the actions of the Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited.
KESHAV GLOBAL TRADING LLC v ETG COMMODITIES HOLDINGS [2025] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural directions for Unless Order and Security for Costs (29 August 2025)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between the Claimants, Keshav Global Trading LLC and Keshav Global Private Limited, and the Defendant, ETG Commodities Holdings Limited. While the underlying merits of the claim remain to be fully ventilated, the current procedural posture is defined by…
KESHAV GLOBAL TRADING v ETG COMMODITIES HOLDING [2025] DIFC CFI 069 — Unless Order application and procedural fairness (13 August 2025)
The Court determined that the Defendant’s request for an "Unless Order"—a procedural tool that would strike out the Claimants' case if specific conditions were not met—involved issues too complex for a summary determination without a hearing.
KESHAV GLOBAL TRADING v ETG COMMODITIES HOLDINGS [2025] DIFC CFI 069 — Refusal of summary disposal for pleading deficiencies (19 March 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that disputes over the sufficiency of damages particulars should be resolved through requests for further information rather than summary judgment or strike-out applications.
FRANKLIN MORGAN LEGAL ADVISORY v ISA ABDULLA HAIDER OBAID BIN HAIDER [2024] DIFC CFI 069 — Final costs assessment following Part 8 proceedings (22 November 2024)
The litigation originated from a Part 8 Claim filed by Franklin Morgan Legal Advisory LLC on 21 September 2024. While the underlying substantive dispute involved the advisory firm’s claims against the Defendant, Isa Abdulla Haider Obaid Bin Haider, the proceedings culminated in a definitive…
FRANKLIN MORGAN LEGAL ADVISORY v ISA ABDULLA HAIDER OBAID BIN HAIDER [2024] DIFC CFI 069 — Costs liability following discontinuance of proceedings (19 November 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the mandatory application of RDC 34.15, holding a claimant liable for a defendant’s costs upon the voluntary discontinuance of a claim, while enforcing strict adherence to the Registrar’s Indicative Hourly Legal Charges.
FRANKLIN MORGAN LEGAL ADVISORY v ISA ABDULLA HAIDER OBAID BIN HAIDER [2024] DIFC CFI 069 — Dismissal of Part 8 Claim (31 October 2024)
The litigation involved a Part 8 Claim filed on 21 September 2024 by the Claimant, Franklin Morgan Legal Advisory, against the Defendant, Isa Abdulla Haider Obaid Bin Haider. While the specific underlying commercial or advisory dispute remained subject to the court’s procedural oversight, the…
IDBI BANK LIMITED, DIFC BRANCH v CHROMEAGE FZE [2023] DIFC CFI 069 — Default judgment following service by publication (06 February 2023)
The lawsuit concerns a significant debt recovery action initiated by IDBI Bank Limited, DIFC Branch, against three defendants: Chromeage FZE, Velocity Systems and Solutions LLC, and Mr Durga Banerjee Bellamkonda.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2022] DIFC CFI 069 — Granting a second application for permission to appeal (05 April 2022)
The litigation between Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla and Expresso Telecom Group Ltd originated as a claim within the DIFC Court of First Instance. Following a judgment delivered by Justice Sir Peter Gross on 8 August 2021, the defendant sought to challenge the court's findings.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Refusal of permission to appeal and stay of execution (28 December 2021)
The underlying dispute in this matter concerns the claimant, Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla, and his former employer, Expresso Telecom Group. Following an initial judgment delivered on 8 August 2021, the defendant sought to challenge the court's findings regarding the claimant's entitlement to…
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 069 — Employment termination for secret profits and penalty claim adjudication (09 December 2021)
The dispute arose from the termination of Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla (TR), a former executive at Expresso Telecom Group (ETG), who sought payment of end-of-service entitlements, including unpaid gratuity and accrued annual leave.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 069 — Employment termination and fiduciary duty dispute (07 December 2021)
The litigation arose from the termination of Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla (TR), a former executive at Expresso Telecom Group (ETG), who sought unpaid end-of-service entitlements and statutory penalties.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 069 — Breach of fiduciary duty and termination for cause (30 November 2021)
The dispute arose from the termination of Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla (TR), a former executive at Expresso Telecom Group (ETG), who sought unpaid employment entitlements totaling US$785,015.80.
TARIG H.A.G RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 069 — Summary assessment of costs and interest following employment judgment (22 November 2021)
The lawsuit originated from an employment dispute where the Claimant, Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla (TR), sought various payments from his former employer, Expresso Telecom Group (ETG). Following the Court’s substantive judgment on 8 August 2021, which awarded TR USD 404,896.67 plus a daily payment…
TARIG H.A.G RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural extension for appellate filings (16 November 2021)
The dispute centers on the procedural timeline governing the appeal process following the initial proceedings in CFI 069/2020. Expresso Telecom Group, as the Defendant, sought judicial intervention to rectify a delay in its appellate filings.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural extension of time for evidence filing (02 November 2021)
The dispute involves a procedural application filed by the Claimant, Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla, against the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group Ltd. The core of the matter before the Court on 2 November 2021 was not the underlying merits of the claim, but rather a request for an extension of time to…
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural management of appellate timelines (26 October 2021)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla, and the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group. Following the initial proceedings, the Defendant initiated an appeal process, filing an Appeal Notice on 30 August 2021.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2020] DIFC CFI 069 — Employment termination for cause and secret profits (08 August 2021)
The dispute arose from the termination of Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla (TR), a former executive at Expresso Telecom Group (ETG), who sought various end-of-service entitlements and statutory penalties. The total amount claimed by the Claimant reached US$785,015.80.
TARIG H.A.G RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural discipline in employment litigation (31 March 2021)
The lawsuit concerns an employment dispute brought by Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla against Expresso Telecom Group. While the specific quantum of the primary claim remains confidential within the court records, the litigation involves significant counter-allegations regarding breach of contract.
TARIG RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Procedural timeline adjustment via consent order (07 March 2021)
The litigation involves a claim initiated by Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla against Expresso Telecom Group, a telecommunications entity, which commenced with the filing of a Claim Form on 30 August 2020.
TARIG H.A.G. RAHAMTALLA v EXPRESSO TELECOM GROUP [2021] DIFC CFI 069 — Document production dispute resolution (22 February 2021)
The litigation involves a dispute between the Claimant, Tarig H.A.G. Rahamtalla, and the Defendant, Expresso Telecom Group, which has escalated into a contest over the scope of document production.
STATE BANK OF INDIA v MOULDS PETROCHEM [2019] DIFC CFI 069 — Commercial guarantee enforcement and the primacy of the Commercial Transactions Law (21 September 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms that commercial guarantees are governed by the UAE Commercial Transactions Law, effectively insulating bank claims from the restrictive time-bar and procedural hurdles found in the UAE Civil Code.