[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> ICICI Bank Limited v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2024] DIFC CFI 034 (18 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DCFI_034.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC CFI 34, [2024] DIFC CFI 034

[New search] [Help]

CFI 034/2022 ICICI Bank Limited v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty

September 18, 2024 court of first instance - Orders

Claim No: CFI 034/2022

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

ICICI BANK LIMITED

Claimant

and

BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY

Defendant

---

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE LORD ANGUS GLENNIE

---

UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-034-2022/7 dated 27 August 2024 seeking an order for production of specified 11 documents, and an order for the Claimant’s Supplemental Expert Report dated 12 August 2024 (“Claimant’s SER”) to be deemed invalid and inadmissible, failing which for permission to file a Supplemental Expert Report out of time.

AND UPON the Claimant’s evidence in answer dated 9 September 2024

AND UPON the Defendant’s evidence in reply dated 13 September 2024

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall serve its Supplemental Expert Report by no later than4pm on 19 September 2024.

2. My decision on the admissibility of the whole or part of that Supplemental Report shall be reserved until the first morning of the trial.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 18 September 2024
At: 4pm

 

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

 

1. I have considered the Defendant’s Application No CFI-034-2022/7 filed on 27 August 2024, the Claimant’s evidence in answer filed on 9 September 2024 and the Defendant’s evidence in reply filed on 13 September 2024.

2. I do not propose to make any Order in respect of the “11 documents” identified in the Defendant’s Application. I see no reason to doubt the Claimant’s explanation that they cannot be found and that their earlier statement that they could be produced was made in error.

3. I reject the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant’s Supplemental Expert Report dated 12 (or 14) August 2024 is in some way “invalid” and “impermissible” and should be refused. The purpose of the Supplemental Report is to respond to the other party’s initial Expert Report. Further, the parties agreed to the exchange of Supplementary Expert Reports. Consent orders were filed reflecting that agreement. No objection was made by the Defendant at the Pre-Trial Review on 15 April 2024.

4. The only matter that causes me concern is the Defendant’s Application to be allowed to serve his Supplemental Expert Report late. Late service of a Report can cause prejudice to the other party. This is particularly so if the new Report contains new material for which the other party’s expert needs time to consider. But if the late Supplemental Report is merely responsive, that should not normally cause any substantial prejudice – it serves to identify areas of agreement and disagreement and gives advance notice of likely lines of cross-examination. I assume that the Defendant has a draft Report ready or almost ready for service. Accordingly, I shall allow the Defendant to serve its Supplemental Expert Report by 4pm UAE time tomorrow, Thursday 19 September. I reserve my decision on the admissibility of the whole or part of that Supplemental Report until the first morning of the trial – in other words I shall allow the Claimant until then to consider whether he requires to raise objections on grounds of prejudicial content.