LITT
Try LITT free
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending mediation stay (16 August 2020)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes a continued pause in litigation to facilitate ongoing alternative dispute resolution between the parties.
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending stay of proceedings (20 July 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Indus International FZC, and the Defendant, Indus Thermal LLC. While the specific underlying cause of action remains confidential within the court’s procedural record, the matter has been active since 2019.
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending stay for mediation (15 June 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Indus International FZC, acting as the Claimant, and Indus Thermal LLC, acting as the Defendant. While the specific underlying causes of action remain confidential within the court record, the procedural history indicates a sustained effort by…
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending stay for mediation (21 April 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Indus International FZC and Indus Thermal LLC. While the underlying substantive claims remain confidential, the procedural history indicates a protracted effort by the parties to resolve their differences outside of the courtroom.
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending stay for mediation (02 April 2020)
The litigation, registered under case number CFI 045/2019, involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Indus International FZC, and the Defendant, Indus Thermal LLC. While the specific nature of the contractual or commercial breach remains confidential within the court’s public record, the…
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order extending mediation stay (23 February 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Indus International FZC and Indus Thermal LLC. While the underlying substantive claims remain confidential, the procedural history of the case indicates a significant effort by both parties to resolve their differences outside the courtroom.
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2020] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order for mediation stay (02 January 2020)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Indus International FZC, acting as the Claimant, and Indus Thermal LLC, as the Defendant. While the specific underlying contractual or tortious claims remain confidential within the court’s public record, the parties reached a mutual agreement to…
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2019] DIFC CFI 045 — Procedural extension of time for Defence (11 December 2019)
The dispute in CFI 045/2019 concerns a procedural application filed by the Defendant, Indus Thermal, seeking additional time to respond to the claims brought by the Claimant, Indus International FZC.
INDUS INTERNATIONAL FZC v INDUS THERMAL [2019] DIFC CFI 045 — Procedural alignment on service of process (29 October 2019)
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Indus International FZC, and the Defendant, Indus Thermal LLC. The primary point of contention addressed by this order was the determination of the effective date of service for the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim.
ACTINA v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CFI 045 — Consent order dismissing proceedings (10 October 2018)
The litigation involved a claim brought by Actina FZCO against Standard Chartered Bank. While the specific underlying causes of action were not detailed in the final consent order, the procedural history reveals a contentious battle over the pleadings, specifically regarding the Claimant’s attempt…
ACTINA FZCO v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CFI 045 — Permission to appeal granted (18 June 2018)
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Actina FZCO, the Claimant, and Standard Chartered Bank, the Defendant. While the specific underlying facts of the substantive claim remain subject to ongoing proceedings, the matter reached a critical juncture following an Order issued by H.E.
ACTINA v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CFI 045 — Procedural timeline for amended pleadings (26 April 2018)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Actina Fzco against Standard Chartered Bank, currently proceeding through the DIFC Court of First Instance. The matter reached a procedural juncture in April 2018, necessitating judicial intervention to manage the timeline for the exchange of pleadings.
ACTINA FZCO v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CFI 045 — Dismissal of immediate judgment application (12 April 2018)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms that complex allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in banking disputes require a full trial, rejecting attempts to dispose of claims via summary judgment.
ACTINA v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2018] DIFC CFI 045 — Procedural alignment via consent order (01 February 2018)
The litigation concerns a banking dispute between the Claimant, Actina FZCO, and the Defendant, Standard Chartered Bank. The primary point of contention at this stage of the proceedings involved the Claimant’s desire to amend its Statement of Claim, a move that necessitated a corresponding…
ACTINA v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 045 — Setting aside default judgment and withdrawing jurisdictional challenges (13 November 2017)
The lawsuit originated from a claim filed by Actina Fzco against Standard Chartered Bank, which culminated in the entry of a default judgment against the bank on 6 November 2017. The core of the dispute at this specific juncture concerned the bank’s attempt to rectify its procedural posture after…
ACTINA FZCO v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [2017] DIFC CFI 045 — Default judgment for financial mis-selling and unauthorized deductions (07 November 2017)
The dispute centered on the Defendant’s sale of an "FX-SCB Product" to the Claimant, Actina Fzco, which the Court ultimately determined was mis-sold to an unsophisticated investor. The Claimant alleged that the bank had wrongly classified it as a "Client" rather than a "Retail Customer," leading to…
TVM CAPITAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2014] DIFC CFI 045 — Stay of costs assessment pending appeal (07 August 2014)
The dispute arose following a judgment delivered on 22 May 2014 in favor of TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited, which included a costs order in their favor. The defendant, Ali Akbar Hashemi, subsequently filed an application for permission to appeal.
TVM CAPITAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2014] DIFC CFI 045 — procedural extension for appellate filings (04 June 2014)
This order addresses the procedural requirements for extending the deadline to file an appeal notice against a judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance.
TVM Capital Healthcare Partners v Ali Akbar Hashemi [2012] DIFC CFI 045 — Breach of confidentiality and Wrotham Park damages (22 May 2014)
The dispute arose from investment discussions between TVM Capital Healthcare Partners Limited and Mr. Ali Akbar Hashemi regarding the potential acquisition of ProVita International Medical Centre, a specialized healthcare provider in Abu Dhabi.
TVM CAPITAL MENA v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2014] DIFC CFI 045 — Withdrawal of interlocutory application during trial (26 March 2014)
This order formalizes the dismissal of a contested interlocutory application following its mid-trial withdrawal by the Defendant, clarifying the procedural treatment of associated costs.
TVM CAPITAL MENA v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2014] DIFC CFI 045 — enforcing disclosure obligations (10 February 2014)
The dispute centers on the adequacy of the Defendant’s compliance with standard disclosure obligations within the ongoing litigation of CFI 045/2012. TVM Capital Mena Limited sought judicial intervention after the Defendant, Ali Akbar Hashemi, failed to provide a transparent account of his document…
TVM CAPITAL MENA v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2013] DIFC CFI 045 — Production Order regarding Redfern Schedule disclosure (03 December 2013)
The dispute centers on the Claimant’s, TVM Capital MENA Limited, attempt to compel the Defendant, Ali Akbar Hashemi, to fulfill his disclosure obligations during the pre-trial phase of the litigation.
TVM CAPITAL MENA v ALI AKBAR HASHEMI [2013] DIFC CFI 045 — Procedural resolution of default judgment dispute (18 June 2013)
The litigation between TVM Capital MENA Limited and Ali Akbar Hashemi reached a critical juncture in May 2013 when the Claimant filed a request for Default Judgment. This filing followed an earlier attempt at service that had become the subject of contention between the parties.
PERRIDON HOLDINGS v RAFIQ GHASSAN RAFIQ SHABIB [2024] DIFC CFI 044 — Discontinuance and cost allocation (14 November 2024)
The litigation originated from a Part 7 Claim Form filed by Perridon Holdings Limited on 26 June 2023. The proceedings were initially marked by a Default Judgment issued by H.E. Nassir Al Nasser on 9 August 2023.