Judgment · Court of Appeal
SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v (1) Renish Petrochem FZE (2) Mr Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta [2022] DIFC CA 011
A reference record of CA 011/2022, drawn from the decision's own text. It sets out who the parties were, who decided it, what the decision did and where to read it. It does not summarise the court's reasoning or offer advice on it.
Where cases like this arise in our work: DIFC Courts Litigation
At a glance
| Claim number | CA 011/2022 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Court of Appeal |
| Decision | Judgment |
| Before | The Court Of Appeal |
| Date | 25 May 2024 |
| Date of issue | 25 March 2024 |
| Operative orders | 7 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 164 |
| Recitals | 13 |
Parties to CA 011/2022
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Sbm Bank (Mauritius) Ltd | Respondent/Claimant |
| (2) Mr Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta | Appellants/Defendants |
| Mr Rupert Reed Kc And Mr James Weale Instructed By Dentons & Co For The | Respondent/Claimant |
| Mr Rajesh Pillai Kc And Mr Calum Mulderrig Instructed By Dla Piper For The | Appellants/Defendants |
Decisions in CA 011/2022
The DIFC Courts have published 6 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 14 October 2022 | Order |
| 16 December 2022 | Order |
| 22 December 2022 | Order |
| 6 February 2023 | Order |
| 27 April 2023 | Order |
| 25 May 2024 | Judgment |
Sums named in the judgment
These figures appear in the text of the decision. They are reproduced as amounts only — what each relates to is set out in the judgment itself.
- USD 21,890,819.50
- USD 9,100,080.00
- USD 8,595,013.68
- USD 10,445,168.25
- USD 8,844,660.00
- USD 13,751,100.00
Authorities cited in CA 011/2022
The decision refers to the following. They are listed as cited — what each was relied on for is set out in the decision itself.
Legislation and practice directions
- DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005 DIFC law
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 24.22, RDC 35.14, RDC 35.16, RDC 35.18, RDC 38.6, RDC 38.8, RDC 44.5, RDC 44.110 — see the RDC.
Other decisions citing the same authority
Records of other DIFC Courts decisions that cite at least one of the same instruments. Shared authority is not shared reasoning — each decision turns on its own facts.
- SCT 198/2023 — Mishtun v Mawul [2023] DIFC SCT 198 also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
- SCT 406/2022 — Liv v Lava Ltd [2022] DIFC SCT 406 also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
- SCT 384/2022 — Lihart v Lufant [2022] DIFC SCT 384 also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
- CA 002/2022 — Expresso Telecom Group Ltd v Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla [2022] DIFC CA 0 also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
- CA 009/2020 — CA 009/2020 Mr. Salem Dwela v Damac Park Towers Company Limited also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
- CFI 054/2020 — CFI 054/2020 (1) Emirates Reit (Ceic) Plc (2) Equitativa (Dubai) Lim also cites DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005
Primary source
Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.
Acting on a court of appeal matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question CA 011/2022 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.