LITT
Try LITT free
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2023] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural timeline for amended pleadings (08 June 2023)
The litigation involves a civil claim brought by Sanjeev and Alka Sawhney against Credit Suisse AG. While the underlying substantive allegations remain subject to the ongoing proceedings, the matter has reached a procedural stage where the parties have sought to refine their respective positions…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2023] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural consolidation and pleading refinement (18 April 2023)
The litigation, initiated by the Claimants against Credit Suisse AG, involves a complex history of pleadings, including multiple applications for strike-out and immediate judgment. The parties reached this consent order to streamline the evidentiary and pleading framework following H.E.
MILLIE v MIHARD [2023] DIFC CFI 062 — Strike out and amendment in financial services litigation (23 February 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the interplay between pleading amendments, limitation periods, and the threshold for striking out claims in a USD 5.5 million financial services dispute.
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2022] DIFC CFI 062 — procedural management of complex banking litigation (21 September 2022)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between the Claimants, Sanjeev and Alka Sawhney, and the Defendant, Credit Suisse AG. The procedural landscape of CFI 062/2021 is defined by multiple active applications that required judicial coordination.
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2022] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural timeline adjustment for amendment application (06 July 2022)
The litigation under case number CFI 062/2021 involves a claim brought by Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney against the defendant, Credit Suisse AG. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the current procedural focus concerns the Claimants'…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2022] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural consent order regarding strike out and amendment applications (03 June 2022)
The litigation involves a complex set of interlocutory challenges initiated by both the Claimants and the Defendant. Credit Suisse AG filed a "Strike Out Application" on 3 February 2022, seeking to invoke RDC 4.16(1) to strike out portions of the Particulars of Claim, RDC 24.1 for immediate…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2022] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural management of strike-out and immediate judgment applications (04 March 2022)
The dispute centers on a complex banking and finance claim brought by Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney against Credit Suisse AG. The litigation reached a critical juncture when the defendant filed a multi-faceted application on 3 February 2022, seeking to strike out portions of the Particulars of…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2021] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural extension for medical exigencies (09 November 2021)
The litigation involves a civil claim brought by Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney against Credit Suisse AG, registered under case number CFI 062/2021. The dispute reached a critical juncture following the service of the Defendant’s Defence on 12 October 2021.
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2021] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural extension of time for pleadings (01 November 2021)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney against the banking institution Credit Suisse AG. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain pending, the current procedural posture concerns the exchange of pleadings following the Defendant’s service of…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2021] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural extension of time for defence (05 October 2021)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney against Credit Suisse AG. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain to be fully ventilated in subsequent proceedings, the immediate dispute before the Court concerned a procedural application for an…
SANJEEV SAWHNEY v CREDIT SUISSE AG [2021] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural extension of time for Defence (16 September 2021)
The litigation initiated under Claim No. CFI 062/2021 involves Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney as Claimants against Credit Suisse AG as the Defendant. While the substantive merits of the underlying claim remain shielded from the public record at this preliminary stage, the proceedings were…
Sanjeev Sawhney v Credit Suisse AG [2021] DIFC CFI 062 — Procedural extension for Particulars of Claim (24 August 2021)
The litigation initiated under Claim No. CFI 062/2021 involves the Claimants, Sanjeev Sawhney and Alka Sawhney, against the Defendant, Credit Suisse AG. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain to be fully ventilated in subsequent filings, the procedural history indicates that…
BURGER & LOBSTER v SOL INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES [2023] DIFC CFI 061 — Settlement and discontinuance of liquidation-related asset dispute (05 April 2023)
This Consent Order formalizes the resolution of a commercial dispute between a liquidating entity and a property developer, resulting in the total discontinuance of proceedings following a structured settlement payment.
BURGER & LOBSTER v SOL INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES [2022] DIFC CFI 061 — Procedural validation of Part 8 claims (30 November 2022)
The dispute centers on the procedural mechanism chosen by the Claimant, Burger & Lobster (Dubai) LLC (In Liquidation), to initiate its claim against the Defendant, SOL International Properties Limited.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2022] DIFC CFI 061 — Registrar denies third-party access to private court schedules (07 July 2022)
The application arose from a request by the law firm White & Case to inspect "Schedule C," a document attached to an order previously issued by Justice Wayne Martin in the ongoing litigation between Barclays Bank PLC and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2020] DIFC CFI 061 — Finalization of quantum and judgment debt (04 May 2021)
The litigation centered on a substantial commercial debt recovery claim initiated by Barclays Bank PLC against Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. The dispute arose from the Defendant’s failure to meet financial obligations owed to the Claimant, leading to a formal claim filed within the DIFC Court of First…
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2020] DIFC CFI 061 — Immediate judgment on banking guarantee (25 April 2021)
The dispute centers on the enforcement of an Unlimited Guarantee and Indemnity executed by Dr. Shetty on 7 January 2015. Barclays Bank PLC initiated proceedings following the default of UAE Exchange Centre LLC (UAEEC) on foreign exchange transactions governed by an ISDA Master Agreement.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2021] DIFC CFI 061 — Amended worldwide freezing injunction (22 April 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance issued an amended worldwide freezing injunction against Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, securing assets up to US$ 135,000,000 to prevent the dissipation of funds amidst ongoing litigation.
BARCLAYS BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2021] DIFC CFI 061 — Procedural order regarding ISDA Master Agreement evidence (11 February 2021)
The litigation involves an application for immediate judgment filed by Barclays Bank against Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. The core of the dispute centers on the enforceability of obligations arising from financial instruments governed by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)…
Khaldoun Tabari v Tabarak Investment [2021] DIFC CFI 061/2018 — Procedural order regarding withdrawal of legal representation (05 January 2021)
The litigation involves Khaldoun Tabari and Zeina Tabari as Claimants against Tabarak Investment as the Defendant. The specific matter at hand concerns the formal cessation of the legal relationship between the Defendant and its appointed counsel, Pinsent Masons LLP.
KHALDOUN TABARI v TABARAK INVESTMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 061 — Denial of permission to appeal (24 August 2020)
The litigation in CFI 061/2018 concerns a complex commercial dispute involving Khaldoun Tabari and Zeina Tabari as Claimants against the Defendant, Tabarak Investment LLC. While the specific underlying contractual or tortious claims remain part of the broader ongoing proceedings, the immediate…
KHALDOUN TABARI v TABARAK INVESTMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 061 — Denial of permission to appeal costs order (17 May 2020)
The litigation originated from a claim filed on 4 September 2018 by Khaldoun and Zeina Tabari against Tabarak Investment LLC regarding an alleged breach of an undertaking. Tabarak Investment LLC challenged the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts, asserting that the dispute lacked a substantive nexus to…
KHALDOUN TABARI v TABARAK INVESTMENT [2020] DIFC CFI 061 — Costs order following JJC jurisdictional stay (30 April 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its authority to award costs against a party that renders DIFC proceedings moot through late-stage, undisclosed applications to the Joint Judicial Committee (JJC).
KHALDOUN TABARI v TABARAK INVESTMENT [2019] DIFC CFI 061 — Costs award following JJC stay (28 November 2019)
The dispute arose from a jurisdictional challenge filed by Tabarak Investment LLC (the Defendant) in the DIFC Court of First Instance. The Claimants, Khaldoun Tabari and Zeina Tabari, initiated proceedings in September 2018, to which the Defendant responded by filing a jurisdiction application on…