LITT
Try LITT free
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — The discretionary nature of the 'Business Exception' in worldwide freezing orders (19 November 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies that the 'Business Exception' in a worldwide freezing order is not a mandatory entitlement, but a discretionary provision contingent upon the defendant's conduct and the specific circumstances of the alleged fraud.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — Case management order regarding expert evidence and trial scheduling (21 October 2020)
The litigation concerns a banking dispute where SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd seeks to recover funds, while the Third Defendant, Prime Energy Fze, contends that its financial dealings with the First Defendant, Renish Petrochem Fze, were legitimate and based on an extended credit line.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — Immediate judgment for fraud in trade finance scheme (27 September 2020)
The dispute arose from a trade finance facility agreement entered into on 12 November 2017, under which SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd provided Renish Petrochem FZE with credit facilities of up to USD 30 million.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — procedural progression via consent order (22 June 2020)
The dispute concerns a banking and finance claim initiated by SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd against three distinct defendants: Renish Petrochem FZE, Mr. Hitesh Chinubhai Mehta, and Prime Energy FZE.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — Procedural directions for information exchange (27 May 2020)
This consent order formalizes the procedural timeline for the exchange of further information and the subsequent filing of a reply in the ongoing banking litigation between SBM Bank and the Renish Petrochem group.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — procedural directions for banking litigation (21 April 2020)
The litigation involves a banking and finance dispute initiated by SBM Bank (Mauritius) against three parties: Renish Petrochem FZE, Mr. Hitesh Chinubhai Mehta, and Prime Energy FZE.
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2020] DIFC CFI 054 — Procedural consent order for pleadings (25 March 2020)
The litigation involves SBM Bank (Mauritius) as the Claimant, pursuing claims against three distinct parties: Renish Petrochem FZE, Mr. Hitesh Chinubhai Mehta, and Prime Energy FZE. While the specific underlying commercial cause of action—typically involving banking facilities or trade finance…
SBM BANK v RENISH PETROCHEM [2019] DIFC CFI 054 — procedural progression following JJC jurisdictional confirmation (16 July 2019)
The lawsuit involves a complex commercial banking dispute initiated by SBM Bank (Mauritius) against four distinct parties: Renish Petrochem FZE, Mr. Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta, Prime Energy FZE, and the National Bank of Kuwait SAKP.
TAWREEQ INVESTMENTS SARL v FAST TELECOM TRADING [2018] DIFC CFI 054 — Default judgment for multi-million dollar commercial debt (05 March 2018)
The litigation centered on a substantial commercial debt claim brought by Tawreeq Investments Sarl against Fast Telecom Trading LLC. The claimant sought recovery of a principal sum exceeding five million US dollars, alongside accrued late payment interest.
QATAR GENERAL INSURANCE & REINSURANCE COMPANY QSPC v EMRGENT RISK SOLUTIONS [2025] DIFC CFI 053 — Pre-trial review costs assessment (17 December 2025)
The litigation involves a dispute between Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC (the Claimant) and Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited (the Defendant). The immediate controversy arose from the Defendant’s Application No.
QATAR GENERAL INSURANCE & REINSURANCE COMPANY v EMRGENT RISK SOLUTIONS [2025] DIFC CFI 053 — procedural intervention in document production (29 August 2025)
The dispute centers on the exchange of document production requests and responses between the Claimant, Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC, and the Defendant, Emrgent Risk Solutions Limited.
GARY PIERRE DELPORT & YOLANDA DELPORT v ABYAAR REAL ESTATE [2023] DIFC CFI 053 — Default judgment for real estate claim (30 August 2023)
The dispute centers on a substantial financial claim brought by Gary Pierre Delport and Yolanda Delport against Abyaar Real Estate Co. While the underlying contractual details regarding the real estate transaction were not elaborated upon in the final order, the litigation reached a critical…
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2025] DIFC CFI 053 — Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed (05 August 2025)
The litigation centered on a claim brought by Vision Investment and Holdings Limited (“Vision”) against Mahdi Amjad (“Mr Amjad”) to recover a sum of AED 26,668,646, plus interest and legal costs.
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2025] DIFC CFI 053 — Indemnity costs awarded for contrived litigation (30 May 2025)
The litigation concerned a claim brought by Vision Investment and Holdings Limited against Mahdi Amjad, centered on an alleged personal undertaking within a Loan Settlement Agreement.
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2022] DIFC CFI 053 — Dismissal of personal guarantee claim (09 April 2025)
The dispute centered on a claim for AED 26,668,646, which the Claimant, Vision Investment and Holdings Limited ("Vision"), sought to recover from the Defendant, Mahdi Amjad, based on an alleged personal undertaking contained within a Loan Settlement Agreement.
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2024] DIFC CFI 053 — Lifting the stay of proceedings (18 September 2024)
The litigation between Vision Investment and Holdings Limited and Mahdi Amjad had been subject to a stay of proceedings, effectively pausing the adjudication of the claims. Following a Case Management Conference (CMC) held on 5 September 2024, the Court determined that the conditions necessitating…
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2024] DIFC CFI 053 — Partial strike-out and security for costs order (25 January 2024)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the limits of third-party beneficiary standing under the UAE Civil Code and confirms the threshold for security for costs against insolvent corporate claimants.
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2023] DIFC CFI 053 — Immediate judgment dismissed and security for costs ordered (23 November 2023)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the standing of a third-party beneficiary in a guarantee dispute while imposing a USD 100,000 security for costs order against an insolvent claimant.
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2023] DIFC CFI 053 — Consent order vacating trial pending strike out determination (02 June 2023)
The litigation involves Vision Investment and Holdings Limited as the Claimant and Mahdi Amjad as the Defendant. While the underlying substantive merits of the claim remain subject to ongoing procedural challenges, the case has reached a critical juncture regarding the viability of the action…
VISION INVESTMENT AND HOLDINGS v MAHDI AMJAD [2023] DIFC CFI 053 — procedural stay and timeline adjustment (17 April 2023)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Vision Investment and Holdings Limited, and the Defendant, Mahdi Amjad. The matter reached a critical juncture in early 2023 following the filing of the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-053-2022/1 on 15 March 2023.
FIMBANK P.L.C. v GAURAV DHAWAN [2022] DIFC CFI 053 — Default judgment for USD 19.1 million (28 January 2022)
The DIFC Court of First Instance confirms the procedural requirements for obtaining a substantial default judgment in a banking dispute involving over USD 19 million in outstanding debt and accrued interest.
ABRAAJ GENERAL PARTNER VIII LIMITED v KPMG LOWER GULF [2022] DIFC CFI 053 — Finalizing cost recovery via consent order (13 June 2022)
The lawsuit originated from a claim brought by Abraaj General Partner VIII Limited, acting on behalf of Neoma Private Equity Fund IV L.P., against KPMG Lower Gulf Limited. Following the dismissal of the substantive claim, the court turned its attention to the recovery of legal costs incurred by the…
ABRAAJ GENERAL PARTNER VIII LIMITED v KPMG LOWER GULF [2021] DIFC CFI 053 — Dismissal following JJC jurisdictional determination (27 July 2021)
The dispute originated from a claim filed by Abraaj General Partner VIII Limited, acting on behalf of Neoma Private Equity Fund IV L.P., against KPMG Lower Gulf Limited on 29 September 2019.
ABRAAJ GENERAL PARTNER VIII LIMITED v KPMG LOWER GULF [2020] DIFC CFI 053 — Stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (25 February 2020)
The litigation concerns a claim brought by Abraaj General Partner VIII Limited, acting on behalf of Neoma Private Equity Fund IV L.P., against KPMG Lower Gulf Limited. While the specific underlying allegations regarding audit conduct or professional negligence are not detailed in the procedural…