LITT
Try LITT free
KHURAM HUSSAIN v HUSSAIN SALEH FARID AL-AWLAQI [2010] DIFC CFI 023 — Provisional liquidator expenditure authorization (03 May 2010)
The dispute in CFI 023/2009 centers on the administrative management of Tabarrak Partners LLP, which is currently subject to insolvency proceedings. The Provisional Liquidator, Shahab Haider, sought the Court’s permission to obtain necessary legal advice to navigate the complexities of the…
KHURAM HUSSAIN v HUSSAIN SALEH FARID AL-AWLAQI [2010] DIFC CFI 023 — Provisional liquidation and membership status (24 January 2010)
The litigation arose from a contentious internal dispute within Tabarak Partners LLP, where the claimant, Khuram Hussain, sought to challenge his purported removal from the partnership.
KHURAM HUSSAIN v HUSSAIN SALEH FARID AL-AWLAQI [2009] DIFC CFI 023 — Procedural management of further information requests (30 December 2009)
The dispute in CFI 023/2009 centers on the adequacy of the information provided by the Claimant, Khuram Hussain, in his initial pleadings. The First and Second Defendants, Hussain Saleh Farid Al-Awlaqi and Andrew Tamplin Clout, found the initial claim lacking in the necessary detail required to…
TAYSEER ALI v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 022 — Assessment of costs following dismissed appeal (17 March 2026)
The dispute arose following the dismissal of the Defendant’s Renewed Application for permission to appeal an earlier order made by Justice Roger Stewart. Following the dismissal of this application by H.E.
TAYSEER ALI v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2026] DIFC CFI 022 — Renewed application for permission to appeal regarding jurisdiction dismissed (29 January 2026)
The DIFC Court of Appeal confirms that specific jurisdiction clauses in incentive agreements prevail over general employment contracts, rejecting an attempt to move a share-based dispute to Pakistani courts.
TAYSEER ALI v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 022 — Assessment of costs in linked litigation (16 December 2025)
The DIFC Court of First Instance provides a critical reminder on the limits of cost recovery in multi-action litigation, emphasizing that proportionality under RDC 38 remains the primary filter for legal fees.
TAYSEER ALI v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 022 — Refusal of permission to appeal on share valuation dispute (20 November 2025)
The litigation concerns a contractual dispute over the valuation of shares granted to the Claimant, Tayseer Ali, by the Defendant, Sadapay Technologies. The core of the disagreement lies in the Claimant’s assertion that the Administrator failed to correctly determine the fair market value of these…
TAYSEER ALI v SADAPAY TECHNOLOGIES [2025] DIFC CFI 022 — Contractual characterization of share incentive claims (18 September 2025)
The lawsuit centered on a claim for breach of contract brought by Tayseer Ali against Sadapay Technologies Ltd. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had improperly determined the fair market value of stock options granted to him under a Grant Agreement and a Share Incentive Plan.
IDBI BANK v FIBER PLUS [2023] DIFC CFI 022 — Default judgment for USD 9.5 million following failed service via courier (10 July 2023)
The lawsuit concerns a substantial financial recovery claim initiated by IDBI Bank Limited against a group of six respondents: Fiber Plus LLC, Mr. Kapil Chugh, Mr. Vishal Goel, Shilpi Worldwide DMCC, Ram Jharoke Leasing & Finance Limited, and Dios Hospitality (P) Ltd.
CHORTEN WANGYEL v DODECA HOLDING [2022] DIFC CFI 022 — Registrar order of discontinuance (04 August 2022)
The litigation initiated by Chorten Wangyel against Dodeca Holding Limited under case number CFI 022/2022 represents a procedural termination of a dispute that did not reach a substantive hearing.
CHORTEN WANGYEL v DODECA HOLDING [2022] DIFC CFI 022 — Consent order for discontinuance (02 August 2022)
The litigation initiated by Chorten Wangyel against Dodeca Holding Limited originated from a claim filed on 21 March 2022. While the specific underlying commercial or contractual grievances were not detailed in the public record, the filing of a Claim Form in the Court of First Instance indicates a…
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL [2021] DIFC CFI 022 — Determining contractual compound interest liability (16 May 2021)
The dispute arose from the parties' inability to reach a consensus on the precise quantum of interest owed following the Court’s initial judgment, which awarded the Claimant a principal sum of USD 6,421,224.71.
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC [2021] DIFC CFI 022 — Permission to appeal granted (10 March 2021)
The dispute arises from the underlying litigation between IDBI Bank Limited and the Defendants, Amira C Foods International DMCC and Mr. Karan A Chanana. Following a judgment issued on 30 November 2020, the Defendants sought to challenge the court's findings by filing an application for permission…
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC [2021] DIFC CFI 022 — Permission to appeal granted (07 March 2021)
The litigation arises from a dispute between IDBI Bank Limited (the Claimant) and the Defendants, Amira C Foods International DMCC and Mr Karan A Chanana. Following a judgment issued on 30 November 2020, the Defendants sought to challenge the Court's findings by filing an application for permission…
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC [2020] DIFC CFI 022 — Abuse of process and the rule in Henderson v Henderson (30 November 2020)
The dispute centered on the recovery of USD 6,421,224.71, which IDBI Bank (the "Bank") alleged was owed by Amira C Foods International DMCC ("Amira") under a Facilities Agreement dated 11 August 2014. The claim also sought to hold the second defendant, Mr.
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC [2020] DIFC CFI 022 — Procedural classification of Part 8 claims (15 September 2020)
The dispute concerns a claim initiated by IDBI Bank Limited against Amira C Foods International DMCC and Karan A Chanana. The core of the litigation involves the bank’s attempt to recover outstanding financial obligations, a matter that necessitated a determination on the appropriate procedural…
IDBI BANK v AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC [2020] DIFC CFI 022 — Consent order regarding service of process (18 May 2020)
The litigation concerns a claim brought by IDBI Bank Limited against Amira C Foods International DMCC as the first defendant and Karan A Chanana as the second defendant. The dispute reached a procedural impasse on 31 March 2020, when the second defendant, Karan A Chanana, filed an application…
VINOD SHARMA v SHEIKH KHALED SAEED HUMAID AL NUAIMI [2020] DIFC CFI 022 — Access to court records and third-party disclosure (01 July 2020)
The Deputy Registrar clarifies the limits of third-party access to confidential pleadings and judgments within the DIFC Court of First Instance.
VINOD SHARMA v SHEIKH KHALED SAEED HUMAID AL NUAIMI [2019] DIFC CFI 022 — Discontinuance following settlement (14 February 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the conclusion of a complex multi-party education sector dispute through a court-sanctioned discontinuance following a private settlement.
Vinod Sharma v Sheikh Khaled Saeed Rashid Humaid Al Nuaimi [2018] DIFC CFI 022 — Maintaining the status quo pending jurisdictional challenge (10 June 2018)
The litigation involves a complex commercial dispute arising within the education sector, pitting the Claimants—Mr Vinod Sharma, Avalon Global Education Services Limited, and Avalon Heights World Private School LLC—against the Defendant, Sheikh Khaled Saeed Rashid Humaid Al Nuaimi.
MR VINOD SHARMA v SHEIKH KHALED SAEED RASHID HUMAID AL NUAIMI [2018] DIFC CFI 022 — Interim injunction against interference with school operations (24 April 2018)
The dispute centers on the management and operational control of Avalon Heights World Private School, located in Ajman, UAE. The Claimants—Mr Vinod Sharma, Avalon Global Education Services Limited, and the school entity itself—alleged that the Respondent, Sheikh Khaled Saeed Rashid Humaid Al…
CLIFFORD CHANCE v HABEEB MOHAMED SAEED ALAQILI AL MARZOOQI [2018] DIFC CFI 022 — Procedural failure in default judgment challenges (07 August 2018)
A strict application of the Rules of the DIFC Courts regarding the correct procedural mechanism for challenging default judgments, resulting in the denial of an appeal application due to form non-compliance.
Hisham Akram Mohamed Sayed Ahmed v Aladdin Hassouna Saba [2016] DIFC CFI 022 — Procedural extension for service of process (18 December 2016)
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute initiated by Hisham Akram Mohamed Sayed Ahmed, Mohamed Akram Mohamed Sayed Ahmed Eid, Samia Saad Elshazly, and Tarek Mohamed Medhat Abdelhady Abdelrahman against Aladdin Hassouna Saba, Mohamed Hazem Barakat, and Wael Mohamed Sayed El Mahgary.
HISHAM AKRAM MOHAMED SAYED AHMED v ALADDIN HASSOUNA SABA [2016] DIFC CFI 022 — Consent order regarding procedural adjournment (05 December 2016)
The litigation involves a complex multi-party dispute initiated by Hisham Akram Mohamed Sayed Ahmed, Mohamed Akram Mohamed Sayed Ahmed Eid, Samia Saad Elshazly, and Tarek Mohamed Medhat Abdelhady Abdelrahman against Aladdin Hassouna Saba, Mohamed Hazem Barakat, and Wael Mohamed Sayed El Mahgary.