Claim No. CFI 090/2021

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

IDBI BANK LIMITED, DIFC BRANCH

Claimant/Applicant

and

(1) FAST TELECOM GENERAL TRADING LLC
(2) FAST TELECOM LOGISTICS FZE (currently named as Elegance Mobile Solutions Logistics FZE)
(3) FAST LINK MOBILE FZCO (currently named as FAST TELECOM LOGISTICS FZE)
(4) MR ALI MOHD SALEM ABU ADAS

Defendants

(5) MOHAMMED JAWDAT AYESH MUSTAFA AL BARGUTHI

Defendant/Respondent

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE MICHAEL BLACK

UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Michael Black dated 24 May 2023 imposing a stay upon these proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal investigation (the “Stay”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-090-2021/6 dated 23 April 2025 seeking to lift the Stay (the “Application”)

AND UPON reviewing a letter from the Bur Dubai Police Station submitted by the Fifth Defendant dated 22 April 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is refused, and the Stay remains in place.

2. Any costs the Fifth Defendant may have incurred in resisting the Application will be the Fifth Defendant’s costs in the case, i.e. should the Fifth Defendant ultimately prevail he will be entitled to his costs, if not the costs will lie where they fall.

Issued By:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 3 June 2025
At: 9am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

1. The Claimant Bank brings these proceedings claiming some USD 2.3 million against the Fifth Defendant as Guarantor under a Facility Agreement dated 22 December 2015 and ancillary Personal Guarantee. His case is that he did not sign either document and his signature was forged. He is supported in this proposition by a report from the Dubai Police Forensic and Criminology Laboratory.

2. The Bank seems to accept that the Fifth Defendant did not sign the documents but claims that they were signed by the Fourth Defendant purporting to sign with the Fifth Defendant’s name and authority.

3. The Fifth Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Bank and the legal representative of “Fast Telecom” which appears to mean the Fourth Defendant.

4. On 24 May 2023 I stayed these proceedings as against the Fifth Defendant pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The proceedings would necessarily entail a decision as to whether the Fourth Defendant forged the Fifth Defendant’s signatures on the Facility Agreement and Personal Guarantee.

5. On 23 April 2025 the Bank issued this application seeking the lifting of the stay. The grounds are that the Bank has been discharged from the criminal complaint and that the outcome of the criminal investigation will not have any effect on the merits of claims/reliefs sought by the Claimant in the present matter, nor will it make any determination of the Claimant’s liability vis a vis the allegation of forgery made by the Fifth Defendant. The Bank says that the complaint remains active only against the Fourth Defendant.

6. For his part the Fifth Defendant has produced a letter from the Dubai Police confirming that the investigation is ongoing.

7. In my judgment the Bank’s application misses the point. The fact that the criminal complaint may have been dismissed against the Bank is irrelevant. The central issue in both the criminal case and this case is whether the Fourth Defendant forged the Fifth Defendant’s signatures on the Facility Agreement and Personal Guarantee. The criminal proceedings must therefore be allowed to take their course.

8. The Bank’s affidavit in support of the application asserts that a further stay of the proceedings would continue to cause it grave prejudice. It does not however identify what that “grave prejudice” might be. I can, of course, see that delay in itself may be said to be prejudicial even if the delay (for example) did not affect the solvency of a party. Here, in the absence of any evidence of specific prejudice being caused to the Bank by the delay, I can see none – if the Bank is ultimately successful it will be compensated in interest at, at least, its normal commercial rates.

9. I should also observe that the stay only affects the claim against the Fifth Defendant. It has always been open to the Bank to proceed against the other Defendants.

10. In the circumstances the application is refused and the stay remains in place.

11. Any costs the Fifth Defendant may have incurred in resisting the application will be the Fifth Defendant’s costs in the case, i.e. should the Fifth Defendant ultimately prevail he will be entitled to his costs, if not the costs will lie where they fall.