State Bank of India (DIFC Branch) v (1) NMC Healthcare LLC (2) NMC Speciality Hospital LLC, Abu Dhabi (3) New Medical Centre LLC Dubai (4) New Medical Centre Speciality Hospital LLC, Al Ain (5) Mr. B.R Shetty [2026] DIFC CFI 047 (18 February 2026)
The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds disclosed a real prospect of success. The refusal to allow amendment of the defence was a discretionary case management decision with no error. The guarantee expressly survived discharge of the principal debt. The trial judge's findings on credibility and expert evidence were justified and not open to appellate interference.
- Citation
- [2026] DIFC CFI 047
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: State Bank of India (DIFC Branch); Defendant/respondent: NMC Healthcare LLC; Defendant/respondent: NMC Speciality Hospital LLC, Abu Dhabi; Defendant/respondent: New Medical Centre LLC Dubai; Defendant/respondent: New Medical Centre Speciality Hospital LLC, Al Ain; Defendant/respondent: Mr. B. R Shetty
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for Permission to Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Personal Guarantee, Enforcement of Guarantee, Procedural Fairness, Appeal Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
State Bank of India (DIFC Branch)
Claimant/appellant
NMC Healthcare LLC
Defendant/respondent
NMC Speciality Hospital LLC, Abu Dhabi
Defendant/respondent
New Medical Centre LLC Dubai
Defendant/respondent
New Medical Centre Speciality Hospital LLC, Al Ain
Defendant/respondent
Mr. B. R Shetty
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the judgment enforcing a personal guarantee
- 2 Whether refusal to amend defence constituted procedural unfairness
- 3 Whether there was apparent bias or procedural irregularity
Ratio Decidendi
The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds disclosed a real prospect of success. The refusal to allow amendment of the defence was a discretionary case management decision with no error. The guarantee expressly survived discharge of the principal debt. The trial judge's findings on credibility and expert evidence were justified and not open to appellate interference.
Court Disposition
Application for Permission to Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The Application for Permission to Appeal is dismissed.
- The Fifth Defendant is to pay the Claimant’s costs of the Application to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment