Claim No: CFI 007/2026

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

(1) BIMAL GANDHI
(2) NISHANT KAUSHIK

Claimants

and

(1) MUHANAD HISHAM MOHAMMED AZZEH
(2) PCS HOLIDING LIMITED
(3) I D CENTRIQ DIGITAL SOLUTIONS – L.L.C

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

UPON the Claimants’ P7 claim form dated 2 February 2026 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Defendants’ Application No. CFI-007-2026/1 seeking an extension of time pursuant to Rule 4.2 (1) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) (the “Application”)

AND UPON reading the First Witness Statement of Seema Bono dated 17 March 2026 filed in support of the Application

AND UPON reading the Witness Statement of Christopher Gunson dated 23 March 2026 filed in reply

AND UPON reading the Second Witness statement of Seema Bono dated 30 March 2026

AND PURSUANT TO the RDC

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. If the Defendants intend to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to RDC Part 12, they shall file and serve any such application (with supporting evidence) by no later than 4pm (GST) on 13 April 2026 (the “Part 12 Application”).

2. Unless a Part 12 Application, the Defendants shall file and serve their Defence by no later than 4pm (GST) on 21 April 2026.

3. If a Part 12 Application is filed by the deadline in paragraph 1 above, the time for filing and serving the Defence shall be stayed pending determination of that Part 12 Application, unless the Court orders otherwise.

4. The costs of the Application are Claimants’ costs to be assessed if not agreed.

5. The parties shall have liberty to apply.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 10 April 2026
At: 10am

1. The Court has power under Rule 4.2(1) of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) to extend or shorten the time for compliance with any rule, practice direction or Court order. In exercising that discretion, the Court must give effect to the overriding objective, including dealing with cases justly and expeditiously, ensuring the parties are on an equal footing, and allotting an appropriate share of the Court’s resources while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

2. The Defendants seek additional time (i) to consider and, if so advised, file a jurisdiction challenge under RDC Part 12 (the “Part 12 Application”) and/or (ii) to file a Defence. At this stage, the proceedings are at an early pleadings phase. The Court’s task is to set a timetable which is workable and fair, but which does not permit avoidable delay.

3. The evidence shows that the Defendants had notice of the Claim from early February 2026 and, in any event, they filed an acknowledgement of service on 4 March 2026. The Court therefore proceeds on the basis that the Defendants have been aware of the substance of the Claimants’ case for some weeks before the ordinary deadlines fell due, notwithstanding any dispute about technical requirements of service and/or translation.

4. The Court accepts that (a) the pleaded claims include serious allegations (including misrepresentation/deceit), (b) the matter may involve multiple causes of action and factual strands, and (c) the Defendants’ solicitors and counsel were instructed only on 11–12 March 2026. Those matters justify some additional time to take instructions, identify the issues, and decide the appropriate procedural course.

5. The Court is not satisfied that the extension sought (six weeks to 4 May 2026) is proportionate. Even allowing for complexity, a lengthy extension at the outset risks undermining the requirement to progress proceedings expeditiously, particularly where the Defendants have already had a substantial period since first having notice of the claim to take advice and preserve documents.

6. The Court accepts the Claimants’ submission that a jurisdiction application is, in general, a more confined exercise than a full pleading on the merits. If the Defendants genuinely intend to pursue the Part 12 Application, the appropriate course is to require that challenge to be filed within a short extended period, rather than allowing time to drift while other steps are taken.

7. The Defendants served a RFI on 17 March 2026 and contend that they require time to await a response before filing a Defence and/or any Part 12 Application. The Court is not persuaded that this justifies the length of extension sought. First, as a matter of procedure, a request under RDC Part 19 does not impose an obligation to respond absent a Court order and does not, of itself, suspend or extend existing deadlines. Second, while targeted clarification may in an appropriate case assist efficient pleading, the Court cannot permit a broad RFI to be used as a mechanism to delay compliance with time limits at the start of proceedings.

8. The Defendants complain that elements of the Claimants’ case (including alleged misrepresentations) are insufficiently particularised. The Court makes no final determination on pleadings adequacy on this Application. However, on the material before it, the Court is satisfied that the Defendants are able to plead at least to jurisdiction (if challenged) and/or to file a Defence in due course on the basis of the Particulars of Claim as presently drafted, with any truly necessary requests for clarification to be addressed by focused RDC Part 19 applications or case management directions if required.

9. The Court takes into account the Claimants’ evidence of ongoing prejudice from delay, including continued deprivation of funds and asserted enforcement risk. The Court also recognises that the Defendants should have a fair opportunity to respond to serious allegations. A limited extension, coupled with a clear requirement to file any Part 12 Application by a fixed date and a Defence deadline only if no Part 12 Application is filed, fairly balances those considerations.

10. The Defendants rely on disruption arising from regional instability. The Court accepts that external circumstances can in some cases affect parties’ ability to litigate at the usual pace. However, on the evidence before the Court, those circumstances do not justify the particular length of extension sought, especially given the need to maintain effective and proportionate case management and where alternative working arrangements are ordinarily available to legal representatives.

11. The Defendants sought an extension which the Court has not granted in the form or for the length requested. The Court has therefore taken that into account when making its costs order on the Application.