Claim No. CFI 110/2025

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURT

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

KARTHI KEYAN VENKATARAMANA

Claimant

and

AHMED MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAHMAN ALI

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SIR JEREMY COOKE

UPON the Claimant’s Part 7 Claim Form and Particulars of Claim dated 20 November 2025

AND UPON the Trial listed before H.E. Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke on 6 to 8 July 2026 (the “Trial”)

AND UPON the Witness Summons filed by the Defendant on 19 May 2026, to secure the attendance of Mr Yuvaraj Kachiappan at the Trial and to produce various documents (the “Witness Summons”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-110-2025/2 dated 1 June 2026, seeking to set aside the Witness Summons (the “Application”)

AND UPON review of the Defendant’s evidence in answer to the Application dated 12 June 2026

AND UPON review of the Claimant’s evidence in reply to the Application dated 16 June 2026

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Witness Summons is set aside.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of and occasioned by the Application, to be subject of detailed assessment if not agreed at the end of the Trial.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 19 June 2026
At: 10am

1. The conduct money tendered to the putative witness was grossly insufficient for the attendance of a witness resident in India, as he has pointed out to the Defendant. That is, in itself, a sufficient reason without tender of an appropriate amount which would have to cover a business class air fare and 2 days/nights’ accommodation in Dubai plus lost earnings.

2. The Court has no power to compel the attendance of an overseas witness and in circumstances where the person requested to attend has refused to come, the Witness Summons serves no useful purpose and the Court will not allow its process to be used for futile purposes.

3. The Claimant does have standing to apply to set aside the Witness Summons on the ground of lack of utility and lack of materiality of the evidence which the Defendant seeks to adduce and the attempt to procure documents from a third party which would not be ordered against the Claimant if he possessed the same, in the light of previous Court orders for disclosure.

4. The putative witness has no relevant evidence to give and the documents to which the witness summons refers are insufficiently material to the pleaded issues which the Court has to determine at the Trial, those being essentially whether the Defendant signed the receipt for the alleged loan and whether he received the alleged loan in cash. The ability of the Claimant to make such a loan (and therefore of any person from whom he obtained the cash) is not in issue.

5. The Claimant was entitled to apply to set aside the Witness Summons and having succeeded in the Application is entitled to the costs of the Application on the standard basis.