LITT
Try LITT free
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural extension for filing of Reply (17 June 2022)
The litigation involves a complex dispute between Bank of Baroda and several entities, including Neo Pharma LLC and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. As the case progressed through the Court of First Instance, the parties reached a consensus regarding the timeline for the exchange of pleadings.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural timeline adjustment for complex multi-party litigation (13 May 2022)
The litigation involves a high-stakes claim initiated by Bank of Baroda against a series of corporate entities and an individual, specifically Neo Pharma LLC, NNMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2022] DIFC CFI 043 — Consent order for amendment of pleadings (29 March 2022)
The dispute involves Bank of Baroda and a group of corporate and individual respondents, including Neo Pharma LLC, NNMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Babaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Consent stay pending ADGM administration (16 December 2020)
The litigation initiated by Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) in May 2020 represented a high-stakes recovery effort against multiple defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Interim stay of proceedings pending ADGM administration (06 December 2020)
This consent order formalizes the stay of DIFC Court proceedings against NMC Healthcare and New Medical Centre following their transition into administration under the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) insolvency regime.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Amendment of pleadings for non-payment (18 August 2020)
The litigation involves a complex financial dispute between Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) and a group of corporate and individual defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr Babaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Alternative service via email (11 July 2020)
The litigation arises from a substantial financial dispute involving Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) as the Claimant and a group of corporate and individual defendants, including Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Mr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Alternative service via email (08 June 2020)
The dispute arises from a banking relationship between the Claimant, Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch), and the Defendants, which include Neo Pharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and Suresh Kumar.
BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural non-compliance in pleading amendments (07 March 2020)
The dispute arose from the Claimant’s attempt to amend its Claim Form and Particulars of Claim to include allegations of non-payment. Bank of Baroda filed an application for an order without a hearing, but the application was fundamentally flawed.
ALIXPARTNERS UK LLP v PANTHER MEDIA GROUP [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural termination via notice of discontinuance (03 October 2019)
The DIFC Court of First Instance formalizes the procedural closure of CFI 043/2019 following the Claimant’s unilateral decision to withdraw the claim.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Default costs assessment following failure to file points of dispute (18 December 2019)
The underlying litigation, registered under case number CFI-043-2017, involved the Claimants, Hepher Associates Ltd and Trevor Anscombe, and the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. Following a substantive judgment delivered by H.E.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO [2019] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural order for withdrawal of legal representation (04 March 2019)
The application filed on 4 March 2019 by Ahmed Bin Dhahi Advocates and Legal Consultants was a formal procedural step to terminate their role as the legal representative for the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co.
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES CO. [2018] DIFC CFI 043 — Case Management Order (01 November 2018)
The lawsuit involves a commercial dispute between the Claimant, Hepher Associates Ltd., and the Defendant, Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. While the specific underlying cause of action is not detailed in the procedural order, the court’s focus on expert evidence regarding "payments" and…
HEPHER ASSOCIATES v RASANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES [2018] DIFC CFI 043 — Setting aside default judgment for a real prospect of success (30 April 2018)
The litigation involves a claim brought by Hepher Associates Ltd and Trevor Anscombe against Rasana Engineering Industries Co. LLC. The matter reached a critical juncture on 28 January 2018, when a default judgment was entered against the Defendant by Judicial Officer Nassir Al Nasser.
D'AMICO SHIPPING ITALIA SPA v ENDOFA DMCC [2017] DIFC CFI 043 — Stay of proceedings pending Joint Judicial Committee determination (04 January 2017)
The dispute between D'Amico Shipping Italia Spa and Endofa DMCC centered on a classic conflict of jurisdiction between the DIFC Courts and the onshore Dubai Courts. D'Amico Shipping Italia Spa initiated proceedings in the DIFC Court of First Instance, seeking to advance its claim through the DIFC…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Procedural review of Assistant Registrar directions (23 October 2016)
The litigation arises from a long-standing dispute between the Claimant, DNB Bank ASA, and the Defendants, Gulf Eyadah Corporation and Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC. The immediate procedural conflict centered on an application filed by the Second Defendant, Gulf Navigation Holding, seeking a de novo…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Compelling disclosure from judgment debtors (08 September 2016)
DNB Bank ASA, acting as the Judgment Creditor, sought to pierce the veil of the Second Judgment Debtor’s financial opacity to facilitate the satisfaction of its judgment. The dispute centers on the bank's requirement to identify assets that could be subject to execution, given the apparent…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Compelling disclosure and oral examination of judgment debtors (18 August 2016)
DNB Bank ASA, acting as the Judgment Creditor, sought to enforce its rights against Gulf Eyadah Corporation and Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC, the First and Second Judgment Debtors, respectively.
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Enforcement of English Commercial Court judgment (18 July 2016)
The dispute centers on the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained by DNB Bank ASA against Gulf Eyadah Corporation and Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC. The Claimant sought to leverage the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction to give effect to an order previously issued by the English…
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2016] DIFC CFI 043 — Dismissal of constitutional stay application (24 May 2016)
The dispute originated from a loan agreement between DNB Bank ASA and Gulf Eyadah Corporation, guaranteed by Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC. Following a default, DNB Bank obtained a judgment in the English Commercial Court for USD 8.7 million plus costs.
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 043 — Refusal to stay cost assessment pending appeal (05 October 2015)
The litigation arose from a failed attempt by DNB Bank ASA to use the DIFC Courts as a "conduit jurisdiction" to enforce a foreign court judgment against Gulf Eyadah Corporation and Gulf Navigation Holding.
DNB BANK ASA v GULF EYADAH CORPORATION [2015] DIFC CFI 043 — Permission to appeal regarding conduit jurisdiction (09 September 2015)
This order addresses the threshold requirements for granting permission to appeal in a dispute concerning the DIFC Court’s power to act as a conduit for the enforcement of foreign court judgments.
AAM HOLDING v FIRST CAPITAL OF SWITZERLAND [2013] DIFC CFI 043 — Consent order and release of funds (21 July 2013)
The litigation in CFI 043/2012 involved a multi-party dispute between the Claimants, AAM Holding Limited and Mahmood Mohamad Rahman Al Ansari, and a group of Respondents including First Capital of Switzerland Limited, First Capital of Switzerland Investment Bank Limited, Bid Capital Investments…
AAM HOLDING v FIRST CAPITAL OF SWITZERLAND [2012] DIFC CFI 043 — Interim injunction restraining negotiation of AED 18.39 million cheque (18 December 2012)
The lawsuit centers on a high-stakes commercial disagreement involving a Union National Bank cheque valued at AED 18,390,000. The Applicants, AAM Holding Limited and Mahmood Mohamad Rahman Al Ansari, sought urgent judicial intervention to prevent the Respondents—specifically First Capital of…