This order marks the finality of the protracted litigation concerning a USD 33.2 million personal guarantee, confirming that the DIFC Court of First Instance’s reliance on expert forensic handwriting analysis remains undisturbed on appeal.
What was the specific nature of the dispute between Bank of Baroda and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty regarding the USD 33,248,029.70 liability?
The litigation centers on a claim brought by the Bank of Baroda (DIFC Branch) against Neopharma LLC, NMC Healthcare LLC, New Medical Centre LLC, and the Fourth Defendant (D4), Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty. The bank sought to enforce a personal guarantee executed on 14 September 2017, which secured a loan facility of over USD 34 million. The core of the dispute evolved as the corporate defendants faced insolvency or prior judgments, leaving D4 as the primary target for the outstanding debt.
It is D4’s position that his defence has been, since the filing of the Claim, unawareness of the Facility Agreement dated 14 September 2017 under which the Claimant purportedly advanced a loan of USD 34,304,383.34 to the First Defendant or the Personal Guarantee executed by D4 on the same date.
The claimant successfully obtained judgment for USD 33,248,029.70. The dispute was narrowed significantly by the procedural history of the case, as the corporate entities were either already subject to judgment or protected by insolvency stays. See BANK OF BARODA v NEO PHARMA [2020] DIFC CFI 043 — Amendment of pleadings for non-payment (18 August 2020).
Which judge presided over the Renewed Permission Application in CFI 043/2020?
The Renewed Permission Application was heard and determined by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani in the Court of First Instance. The order was issued on 22 January 2026, following a series of prior applications and a substantive trial conducted by H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin.
What were the respective positions of the Bank of Baroda and Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty regarding the validity of the personal guarantee?
The bank maintained that the personal guarantee was a valid, enforceable instrument signed by D4. Because the bank’s factual witness, Mr. Chauhan, lacked direct knowledge of the signing event, the bank relied heavily on forensic expert evidence to authenticate the signature.
D4 relied heavily on expert handwriting evidence, as he refused to be called for cross- examination of his witness statements and the Claimant’s factual witness, Mr Chauhan, had no direct knowledge of the signing of the guarantee.
D4, conversely, argued that the signature was a forgery. He sought to undermine the bank’s case by presenting his own expert, Mr. Ahmed Albah, while simultaneously refusing to submit himself to cross-examination regarding his own witness statements. D4’s defense rested on the assertion that the document was either a forgery or an electronic fabrication, a position the court ultimately found inconsistent and unsupported by credible evidence.
What was the precise legal question H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani had to answer regarding the Renewed Permission Application?
The court was tasked with determining whether D4 met the threshold for permission to appeal the judgment of Chief Justice Wayne Martin. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the grounds of appeal—which alleged errors in law and fact—carried a real prospect of success. This required the court to evaluate whether the trial judge’s assessment of the conflicting expert handwriting evidence was legally sound and whether the procedural handling of the trial, including the rejection of D4’s expert, constituted a reversible error.
How did the court apply the test for granting permission to appeal in the context of the Renewed Permission Application?
The court applied the established appellate standard, which requires an appellant to demonstrate that the lower court’s decision was either wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity. H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani conducted a fresh assessment of the grounds, independent of the previous refusal by Chief Justice Wayne Martin.
The Court of Appeal will allow an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance where the decision of the lower Court was: (1) Wrong; or (2) Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irr
The court found that the trial judge’s reliance on the claimant’s expert, Ellen Radley, was entirely justified given the methodological rigor of her report compared to the "vague, unsubstantiated" conclusions provided by D4’s expert. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly addressed the absence of direct witness testimony by weighing the forensic evidence, and therefore, the appeal grounds lacked any prospect of success.
Which statutes and RDC rules were central to the court’s determination in this application?
The court’s decision was governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically those pertaining to the permission to appeal process. RDC 44.11 and RDC 44.117 were central to the procedural requirements for the Renewed Permission Application. The court also considered the application of the Overriding Objective under RDC 1.6, which D4 attempted to invoke as a supplementary ground for appeal. The court’s authority to manage the trial and evidence was exercised in accordance with RDC 31.11 and 31.19, which govern the admission and weight of expert evidence.
How did the court utilize the cited precedents, such as Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 408, in its reasoning?
The court utilized Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Ors to reinforce the principles regarding the weight to be given to expert forensic evidence and the high threshold for challenging findings of fact on appeal. The court emphasized that where a trial judge has carefully considered the methodology of a forensic expert—as Chief Justice Wayne Martin did with Ellen Radley—an appellate court will be extremely reluctant to interfere with those findings. The court also referenced its own prior judgment in the same case (CFI 043/2020) to maintain consistency in the treatment of D4’s forgery defense and the rejection of Mr. Albah’s testimony.
What was the final outcome and the specific orders made by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani?
The court dismissed the Renewed Permission Application in its entirety, confirming that D4 had no prospect of success in his appeal. Consequently, the judgment debt of USD 33,248,029.70 remains enforceable against D4, along with the interest and costs previously awarded. The court made no order as to costs for this specific application, effectively concluding the procedural battle over the right to appeal.
What are the wider implications of this decision for practitioners handling forgery defenses in the DIFC?
This decision serves as a stern reminder that the DIFC Courts will not tolerate "vague" or "contradictory" expert evidence when a party alleges forgery. Practitioners must ensure that any expert witness is not only qualified but also capable of explaining their methodology clearly and consistently under cross-examination. Furthermore, the case highlights the risks of a party refusing to be cross-examined on their own witness statements, as the court is likely to draw adverse inferences and rely heavily on the remaining forensic evidence. Litigants should anticipate that the court will prioritize the methodological integrity of forensic reports over unsubstantiated claims of electronic manipulation.
Where can I read the full judgment in Bank of Baroda v Neopharma [2026] DIFC CFI 043?
The full judgment is available on the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0432020-bank-baroda-difc-branch-v-1-neopharma-llc-2-nmc-healthcare-llc-3-new-medical-centre-llc-4-bavaguthu-raghuram-shetty-19 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-043-2020_20260122.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Ors | [2020] EWCA Civ 408 | Authority on the weight of expert evidence and appellate deference. |
| Bank of Baroda v Neopharma | CFI 043/2020 | Primary judgment under appeal; established the liability of D4. |
Legislation referenced:
- RDC 44.11 (Permission to appeal)
- RDC 44.117 (Renewed permission applications)
- RDC 44.19 (Grounds for appeal)
- RDC 31.11 (Expert evidence)
- RDC 31.19 (Expert evidence)
- RDC 1.6 (The Overriding Objective)