(1) Amira C Foods International DMCC (2) Karan A Chanana v IDBI Bank Limited [2021] DIFC CA 004

August 24, 2021 Court of Appeal - Judgments

Claim No. CA 004/2021

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the Name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ZAKI AZMI, H.E JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI AND JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE

BETWEEN

(1) AMIRA C FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC
(2) KARAN A CHANANA

Appellants/Defendants

and

IDBI BANK LIMITED

Respondent/Claimant

---

JUDGMENT

---

Hearing :	3 June 2021
Counsel :	Tom Montagu-Smith QC instructed by Clyde & Co on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants Roger Masefield QC instructed by Allen & Overy on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant
Judgment :	24 August 2021

ORDER

UPON the Respondent’s Part 8 Claim for USD 6,421,224.71 advanced to the First Defendant under a Facilities Agreement dated 11 August 2014

AND UPON considering the Appellants’ Appeal Notice filed on 24 December 2020

AND UPON reading the Skeleton Arguments for the Appellants and for the Respondent

AND UPON hearing counsel for the Appellants and counsel for the Respondent at a hearing on 3 June 2021

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

1. The Appeal is dismissed.

2. The Appellants shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal, such costs to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.

Issued by:
Nour Hineidi
Registrar
Date of issue: 24 August 2021
At: 3pm

JUDGMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE ZAKI AZMI, H.E JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI AND JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE IN AGREEMENT:

Introduction

1. This is the judgment of the court.

2. This is an appeal by the Appellants/ Defendants (to whom we shall refer respectively as “Amira” and “Mr Chanana” and, together, as the “Defendants” ) against the Judgment and Order of Justice Sir Richard Field dated 30 November 2020 (in Claim No. CFI-022-2020), in terms of which he gave judgment for the Claimant, IDBI Bank Limited (the “Bank” ) for US$ 6,421,224.71 plus contractual interest in a sum to be agreed or, in the absence of agreement, to be determined by the Court.

3. In giving judgment for Claimant/Respondent (the “Bank” ), the judge dismissed the Defendants’ application to strike out the Bank’s claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process for the Bank to bring the claim in the instant proceedings when it could and should have raised the claim in prior proceedings between the same parties, viz. action CFI-027-2018 ( “The Abuse Of Process Defence” ). The Abuse Of Process Defence was and remains the only defence advanced by the Defendants in answer to the Bank’s claim in this action, so that the rejection of the application to strike out the Bank’s claim led inexorably, without the necessity of further argument, to the award of judgment for the Bank on its claim. It is a striking feature of this litigation that it has never been suggested that the Defendants have any substantive defence to the claim or that they do not owe the Bank the sum sued for.

4. This appeal is brought with leave of the judge granted on 7 March 2021. The Defendants seek to persuade this court that the judge was wrong to reject the Abuse Of Process Defence and, accordingly, that he was wrong to dismiss the Defendant’s application to strike out the Bank’s claim. They argue in particular: (a) that the Bank both could a