Claim No: CFI 079/2020

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DIFC BRANCH

Claimant

and

(1) NMC HEALTHCARE LLC
(2) NEW MEDICAL CENTRE TRADING LLC
(3) NMC SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LLC DUBAI
(4) NMC SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LLC ABU DHABI
(5) NEW MEDICAL CENTRE SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LLC AL AIN
(6) MR B R SHETTY
(7) NMC HEALTH PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION)

Defendants

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE

UPON the Claimant’s Part 7 Claim Form dated 28 September 2020 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Notice of Discontinuance dated 20 October 2025 (the “Notice of Discontinuance”)

AND UPON the Order of Assistant Registrar Delvin Sumo dated 25 November 2025 administratively closing the Claim (the “Order”)

AND UPON the First to Fifth Defendants’ Application No. CFI-079-2020/10 dated 26 August 2026 seeking an order for discontinuance of the Claim (the “Application”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court records that the Notice of Discontinuance took effect upon service on the First to Fifth Defendants on 29 October 2025.

2. The proceedings against the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants stand discontinued.

3. There be no order as to costs of the Claim as between the Claimant and the First to Fifth Defendants.

4. There be no order as to costs of the Application.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 17 September 2026
At: 2pm

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

A. Introduction

1. By Application No. CFI-079-2020/10 dated 26 August 2026 (the “Application”), the First to Fifth Defendants seek orders that:

2. The Application was made following the filing by the Claimant of a Notice of Discontinuance dated 20 October 2025 by which the Claimant purported to discontinue its Claim against the First to Fifth Defendants.

B. Background

3. On 20 October 2025, the Claimant filed a notice stating that it discontinued its Claim against the First to Fifth Defendants and that permission of the Court was not required.

4. The First to Fifth Defendants' evidence is that the Notice of Discontinuance was served on them on 29 October 2025.

5. Following the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance, the Registry requested the Claimant to file a Certificate of Service confirming the date, time and method of service of the notice upon the First to Fifth Defendants.

6. The Claimant did not respond to the Registry's request.

7. On 25 November 2025, the Assistant Registrar ordered that the Claim be administratively closed.

8. The First to Fifth Defendants subsequently sought the Claimant's agreement to formal orders reflecting the discontinuance. Those requests were not answered.

C. Applicable Rules

9. Rule 34.3 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) provides that a Claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim at any time. RDC 34.5 provides that where there is more than one Defendant, a Claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim against all or any of the defendants.

10. RDC 34.6 provides that to discontinue a claim or part of a claim, a claimant must file a notice of discontinuance and serve a copy of it on every other party to the proceedings.

11. RDC 34.12 provides that where permission of the Court is not required, discontinuance against a defendant takes effect on the date when the notice of discontinuance is served on that defendant. RDC 34.13 provides that, subject to RDC 34.10 and RDC 34.11, the proceedings are brought to an end against that defendant on that date.

12. RDC 34.14 provides that discontinuance does not affect proceedings on any question of costs.

D. Discussion

13. The Notice of Discontinuance filed by the Claimant expressly stated that the Claimant discontinued its Claim against the First to Fifth Defendants. The notice further stated that the Court's permission was not required.

14. There is no evidence that the Notice of Discontinuance has been set aside under RDC 34.10. Nor is there any evidence that any application to set aside the notice was made within the period prescribed by RDC 34.11.

15. The evidence before the Court establishes that the Notice of Discontinuance was served on the First to Fifth Defendants on 29 October 2025.

16. Pursuant to RDC 34.12, the discontinuance took effect on 29 October 2025. Pursuant to RDC 34.13, the proceedings against the First to Fifth Defendants were concluded on that date.

17. The subsequent administrative closure order made by the Assistant Registrar on 25 November 2025 did not determine the substantive rights of the parties and did not set aside or invalidate the Notice of Discontinuance. The order was made because the Claimant failed to respond to the Registry's request for a Certificate of Service.

18. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the Claim against the First to Fifth Defendants was discontinued upon service of the Notice of Discontinuance. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to order a fresh discontinuance.

19. It is nevertheless appropriate to make a consequential order recording the effect of the Notice of Discontinuance and confirming that the proceedings against the First to Fifth Defendants stand discontinued. Such an order will clarify the status of the proceedings and further the overriding objective.

E. Costs

20. RDC 34.15 provides that, unless the Court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues a claim is liable for the defendant's costs incurred up to and on the date on which notice of discontinuance was served.

21. However, the First to Fifth Defendants do not seek an order for costs. Rather, they seek that there be no order as to costs in respect of the Claim and the Application.

22. Having regard to the relief sought, the Claimant's prior decision to discontinue the Claim, the absence of opposition to the Application, and all the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to make no order as to costs.

F. Orders

23. For these reasons, I order that: