This order marks the final quantification of legal costs arising from the Defendant’s unsuccessful attempt to secure permission to appeal the substantive judgment delivered by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie in February 2025.
What is the specific monetary value of the costs awarded to ICICI Bank Limited following the dismissal of the Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal by Mr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty?
The litigation between ICICI Bank Limited and Mr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty has been characterized by extensive procedural skirmishing, culminating in a series of applications regarding the Defendant's right to appeal the court's earlier findings. Following the substantive judgment delivered on 17 February 2025, the Defendant sought to challenge the decision through an initial Application for Permission to Appeal, which was subsequently refused by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie on 17 April 2025.
Undeterred, the Defendant filed a Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal on 5 May 2025. This application was ultimately dismissed by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin on 26 June 2025. As a consequence of this dismissal, the Court ordered the Defendant to bear the costs associated with the Renewed Application. The final quantification of these costs was determined by the Court on 13 August 2025.
The costs to be paid to the Claimant by the Defendant are quantified in the amount of USD 21,865.44 inclusive of VAT.
This figure represents the final liability for the Claimant’s legal expenses incurred specifically during the Renewed Application phase. The procedural history of this case is extensive, involving several prior interlocutory disputes, including ICICI BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2022] DIFC CFI 034 — Refusal of alternative service via email (11 October 2022), ICICI BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2022] DIFC CFI 034 — Extension of time for service of claim form (14 November 2022), ICICI BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2023] DIFC CFI 034 — procedural dismissal following withdrawal of service extension application (18 May 2023), and ICICI BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2023] DIFC CFI 034 — Procedural timeline for Statement of Defence (23 May 2023).
Which judge presided over the quantification of costs in the Court of First Instance on 13 August 2025?
The order quantifying the costs was issued under the authority of H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance. This order followed the Chief Justice's previous determination on 26 June 2025, which dismissed the Defendant’s Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and directed the parties to submit their respective costs positions for final assessment.
What were the respective positions of ICICI Bank Limited and Mr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty regarding the costs of the Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal?
The Claimant, ICICI Bank Limited, maintained that as the successful party in resisting the Defendant's Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal, it was entitled to recover the entirety of its legal costs incurred in opposing that specific procedural step. Following the Court’s order of 26 June 2025, which mandated the Defendant to pay these costs, the Claimant filed detailed costs submissions on 9 July 2025.
The Defendant, Mr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, had sought to challenge the underlying judgment of 17 February 2025. By filing the Renewed Application, the Defendant effectively invited the Court to revisit the refusal of permission to appeal previously issued by H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie. Upon the dismissal of this application, the Defendant became liable for the costs associated with the Claimant's opposition, which the Court subsequently assessed and quantified based on the submissions provided by the Claimant.
What was the precise legal question before the Court regarding the quantification of costs in CFI 034/2022?
The primary legal issue before the Court was the assessment and quantification of recoverable costs following the dismissal of an application for permission to appeal. Having already established the principle of liability—that the Defendant must pay the Claimant's costs—the Court was required to determine the reasonableness and proportionality of the sum claimed by the Claimant.
The Court had to ensure that the amount of USD 21,865.44 accurately reflected the work performed by the Claimant’s legal representatives in responding to the Renewed Application. This involved reviewing the Claimant’s costs submissions dated 9 July 2025 to ensure compliance with the principles of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) regarding the recovery of costs, specifically ensuring that the amount was not excessive and was inclusive of all applicable taxes, such as VAT.
How did H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin arrive at the final figure of USD 21,865.44?
The Court’s reasoning was grounded in the procedural history of the case and the specific orders previously issued by the Court. The process began with the substantive judgment of 17 February 2025, followed by the unsuccessful attempts to appeal. The Court’s order of 26 June 2025 served as the foundational authority for the costs award, explicitly directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s costs of the Renewed Application.
The costs to be paid to the Claimant by the Defendant are quantified in the amount of USD 21,865.44 inclusive of VAT.
By reviewing the Claimant’s costs submission filed on 9 July 2025, the Court verified that the requested amount was consistent with the scope of the work required to oppose the Renewed Application. The Court’s role in this instance was to finalize the liability, ensuring that the litigation process concluded with a clear, enforceable monetary order that accounted for the Claimant's expenditure in defending the judgment against the Defendant's procedural challenges.
Which specific provisions of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) govern the recovery of costs in this matter?
The recovery of costs in the DIFC Courts is governed by Part 38 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), which sets out the general rules regarding the court's power to award costs and the assessment of those costs. Specifically, RDC 38.1 provides the Court with a wide discretion to determine whether costs are payable by one party to another, the amount of those costs, and when they are to be paid.
In this case, the Court exercised its discretion under RDC 38 to quantify the costs following the dismissal of the Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal. The Court also relied on the specific directions provided in the Order of 26 June 2025, which mandated the payment of costs as a consequence of the failed application. The quantification process ensures that the successful party is indemnified for the costs reasonably incurred in the course of the proceedings, in accordance with the standards set out in the RDC.
How did the Court apply the principle of cost recovery in the context of the Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal?
The Court applied the principle that costs should follow the event, a standard practice in DIFC litigation. Having dismissed the Defendant's Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal, the Court determined that the Claimant, as the successful party in that specific procedural contest, was entitled to recover its costs.
The Court utilized the precedent established in its own previous orders within this case, particularly the order of H.E. Justice Lord Angus Glennie dated 17 April 2025, which set the precedent for awarding costs against the Defendant for unsuccessful appeal applications. By following this established pattern, the Court maintained consistency in its approach to cost liability throughout the various stages of the litigation, ensuring that the Defendant remained responsible for the costs generated by his unsuccessful procedural challenges.
What is the final disposition of the costs application, and what are the specific orders made by the Court?
The Court issued a definitive order on 13 August 2025, which finalized the costs liability of the Defendant. The disposition is as follows:
- The Court accepted the Claimant’s costs submission dated 9 July 2025.
- The Court quantified the costs payable by the Defendant to the Claimant at USD 21,865.44.
- This amount is inclusive of VAT.
- The order was issued by the Assistant Registrar, Delvin Sumo, on behalf of the Court.
This order effectively concludes the costs assessment for the Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal, providing the Claimant with an enforceable judgment for the specified amount.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners regarding the quantification of costs in the DIFC?
This order serves as a reminder to practitioners of the importance of meticulous costs submissions following the conclusion of procedural applications. The DIFC Courts emphasize the need for clear, itemized, and reasonable costs claims that align with the work performed during specific stages of litigation. Practitioners must anticipate that the Court will rigorously scrutinize costs submissions to ensure they are proportional to the complexity of the application and the work involved.
Furthermore, this case illustrates the Court's commitment to finalizing costs liability promptly after the resolution of substantive or procedural disputes. By quantifying costs in a separate order, the Court prevents the accumulation of unresolved costs issues, thereby streamlining the path toward the eventual enforcement of the final judgment. Litigants should be prepared for the Court to enforce costs awards strictly, particularly when those costs arise from unsuccessful attempts to delay or challenge the court's decisions.
Where can I read the full judgment in ICICI BANK v BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY [2025] DIFC CFI 034?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0342022-icici-bank-limited-v-mr-bavaguthu-raghuram-shetty-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-034-2022_20250813.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| ICICI Bank Limited v Mr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty | [2025] DIFC CFI 034 | Substantive judgment and procedural history |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), Part 38 (Costs)