Skip to Content

Ikhlas Commercial Bank (PJSC) v Idrees [2018] DIFC SCT 176

Ikhlas Commercial Bank (PJSC) v Idrees [2018] DIFC SCT 176

June 20, 2018


Claim No. SCT 176/2018 


In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,

Ruler of Dubai












Hearing: 10 June 2018

Judgment: 20 June 2018


UPON the Claim Form being filed on 22 April 2018;

UPON the Defendant acknowledging service of the Claim Form and indicating his intent to defend all of the Claim on 26 April 2018;

UPON the parties being called for a Consultation on 6 May 2018 before SCT Judge Mariam Deen and the parties not having reached settlement;

UPON a Hearing having been held before SCT Judge Maha Al Mehairi on 10 June 2018, with the Claimant’s representative, Mr. Iglik on telephone and the Defendant in attendance;

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence submitted in the Court file;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendant pay the Claimant AED 181,503.93 in respect of the unpaid loan. 

Issued by:

Maha Al Mehairi

SCT Judge

Date of issue: 20 June 2018

At: 12pm



1.The Claimant is IkhlasCommercial Bank (PJSC), a bank providing financial services including credit cards and personal loans to customers (the “Claimant”).

2. The Defendant is Idrees, an Indian National (the “Defendant”).


3. The parties entered into a written agreement on 5 January 2016, entitled ‘Simply Life Personal Loan’ (the “Agreement”). Under the terms of the Agreement, the Claimant received a loan of AED 325,000 (the “Loan”), to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of AED 8,002.

4. The Defendant made regular repayments of the Loan until 31 January 2018, after which date he fell into arrears. The remaining amount currently outstanding is AED 178,925.89.

5. Following the Defendant’s failure to keep up with his repayments, the Claimant filed a claim to recover the amounts on 22 April 2018 (the “Claim”).

6. In his Acknowledgment of Service, the Defendant indicated his intention to defend all of the Claim.

7. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Mariam Deen on 6 May 2018 but were unable to reach a settlement.

8. On 10 June 2018, I heard submissions from the Claimant’s representative and the Defendant.


9. In its written submissions and in the Hearing, the Claimant relied on the terms of the Agreement which set out for a AED 325,000 loan to be made to the Defendant by the Claimant, which was to be repaid in 48 equal installments. The Claimant confirmed that it sought repayment of the outstanding amounts of the loan, which amounted to AED 178,925.89, in addition to 14.99% interest and recovery of costs.

10. In the Hearing, the Defendant put forward a defence stating that the Claimant failed to disclose that failure to pay was triggered by the Claimant’s misrepresentation practices, the Defendant added that he continuingly paid his monthly installments up to 31 January 2018 and due to some unexpected financial crisis, the Defendant had initiated discussions with the Claimant to restructure and reduce the monthly installments.

11. The Defendant also added that he had informed the bank about the salary delays and was in contact with Claimant’s representative on 29 January 2018 to discuss the matter. On 31 January 2018, the Defendant visited the Ikhlas dubai branch and had a discussion with Mr. Ifat to confirm the restructure of the Loan. However, the Defendant received a call from the Police at the same time that he was in the discussion with the Claimant in regard to the restructure of the Loan. The Claimant went ahead and deposited the security cheque, which bounced back due to insufficient funds.

12. The Defendant states that due to the police case, the Defendant was imprisoned for 1 night and was made to pay a fine of AED 10,000 which could have been used towards the monthly installment for the Loan.

13. In his defence, the Defendant requested that the Court restructure his loan to an amount of AED 2,000 per month as he is undergoing severe financial crisis, and to grant damages against the Claimant in the form of reimbursement of the fine paid as a direct result of Claimant’s misrepresentation practices, in addition, to the filing fees and expenses that he paid.


14. This is a very straightforward matter, I am satisfied that there was a valid and binding Agreement between the parties and that the Claimant is owed a total of AED 181,503.93, being the sum of the outstanding Loan borrowed, plus interest, and the court filing fee.

15. The Claimant confirmed that interest had already been factored into the value of the claimed amount, therefore, no separate award shall be made in respect of interest.

16. In regard to the Defendant’s request, there was no Counterclaim filed in the case and as such the requests are denied.


Issued by:

Maha Al Mehairi

SCT Judge

Date of issue: 20 June 2018

At: 12pm


Privacy Policy

The Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DIFC Courts's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DIFC Courts in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DIFC Courts is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DIFC Courts’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.


The content of the DIFC Courts website is provided for information purposes only and should be disregarded when making decisions on inheritance and any other matters. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, the DIFC Courts makes no warranties or representations to you as to the accuracy, authenticity or completeness of the content on this website, which is subject to change at any time without notice. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by the DIFC Courts or any person employed or connected with it or formerly so employed or connected, to any person on any matter, be it in relation to inheritance, succession planning or otherwise. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer in relation to your personal circumstances and your objectives. The DIFC Courts does not assume any liability and shall not be liable to you for any damages, including but not limited to, direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website, its administration and any content or lack thereof found on it. The information on this web site is not to be displayed except in full screen format. Although care has been taken to provide links to suitable material from this site, no guarantee can be given about the suitability, completeness or accuracy of any of the material that this site may be linked to or other material on the internet. The DIFC Courts cannot accept any responsibility for the content of material that may be encountered therein.