September 12, 2018 court of first instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI-027-2018
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
(1) AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC
(2) A K GLOBAL BUSINESS FZE
Claimants
and
IDBI Bank Limited
AMENDED ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE
UPON reviewing the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-027-2018/1 dated 5 August 2018 seeking an order to add Mr. Karan A Chanana (the “Proposed Third Party”) as an additional party to the proceedings (the “Application”)
UPON reading the First Claimant and the Proposed Third Party’s submissions dated 26 August 2018 in opposition to the Application and the Defendant’s response dated 3 September 2018
AND UPON reading the parties’ supplementary submissions dated 6 September 2018 received from the First Claimant and 9 September from the Defendant
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application is granted.
2. The First Claimant and the Defendant shall bear their own costs of the Application.
Issued by:
Maha Al Mehairi
Judicial Officer
Date of Issue: 5 September 2018
Reissued on: 12 September 2018
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. These are revised reasons given in relation to my initial Orders of 5 September 2018 in light of supplementary submissions filed by the parties.
2. The issue of the effect on the facility arrangement of the Irrevocable Letter remains to be resolved and the effect of breach in failing to pay money to a third party, including issues of law, causation and quantum, following my judgment of 13 May 2018. It is the Defendant’s case that the First Claimant was and is in default of the facility arrangements and is indebted to the Defendant and that the Proposed Third party is liable in respect of such failure and debt under the guarantee he has given.
3. It cannot be said that the Defendant does not have an arguable case on its counterclaim against the First Claimant and despite the submissions made by the First Claimant and Proposed Third Party, it necessarily has, on that basis, an arguable case against the latter under the guarantee, regardless of the claims of the First Claimant for damages and its submission as to extension of the Facility arrangements.
4. Once this is recognised, it is clear that the application to join the Third Party must be allowed since the issues which arise on the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party are inextricably bound up with the counterclaim against the First Claimant. The criteria set out in RDC 21.30 are met and as a matter of efficient case management the issues which arise as between the First Claimant and the Defendant and those between the Defendant and the Third Party should obviously be heard together.
5. The First Claimant may be shown to be right on the substantive issue of indebtedness and event of default, on breach, causation and loss and damage, but that remains to be explored at trial and the claim against the Third Party should be determined at the same time.
6. Because the First Claimant opposed the application and has failed, it should bear its own costs of the application, whilst, as the Defendant has applied subsequently to join the Third Party, it is right that it should bear its own costs.
