SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd v (1) Renish Petrochem FZE (2) Mr Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta [2022] DIFC CA 011 (14 October 2022)

By consent, the parties' submissions are to be treated as evidence for the purposes of the application, and no further evidence is required from either party.

Citation: [2022] DIFC CA 011
Parties: Respondent/claimant: SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Renish Petrochem FZE; Appellant/defendant: Mr Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta
Jurisdiction: United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date: 14 October 2022
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Consent Order on Interlocutory Application
Outcome: Consent Order granted
Legal Topics: Consent Orders, Evidence, Interlocutory Applications

Civil Procedure Consent Orders Evidence Interlocutory Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

SBM Bank (Mauritius) Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Renish Petrochem FZE

Appellant/defendant

Mr Hiteshkumar Chinubhai Mehta

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Consent Order on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the parties' submissions should be treated as evidence for the purposes of the application under RDC 23.41

Ratio Decidendi

By consent, the parties' submissions are to be treated as evidence for the purposes of the application, and no further evidence is required from either party.

Court Disposition

Consent Order granted

Orders

The Response is considered as the Appellants' evidence in answer to the Application for the purposes of RDC 23.41(2) and no further evidence is required from the Appellants.
The Reply is considered as the Respondent's evidence in reply to the Response for the purposes of RDC 23.41(3) and no further evidence is required from the Respondent.