Loanee asked to pay Dh15 million to bank

DUBAI — Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank will get its dues of over Dh15 million from a man who was granted a loan and an overdraft, with the Dubai Court of Cassation upholding the verdicts of both the courts of first instance and appeal. Ahmed Abdullah Hassan Al Qamish has been directed to pay the bank Dh15 million besides an additional Dh153,000.

By A Staff Reporter

Published: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 10:24 AM

Last updated: Thu 2 Apr 2015, 9:18 PM

The story goes back to October 2001 when the bank made a case against the defendant asking him to pay 15 million and Dh368,000 in addition to the interests dues from the date of maturity. The bank also asked the rights of the mortgage contract for a plot of land located in Al Rafah area in addition to the mortgage contract of shares.

The court deputed a financial expert who submitted his report to the first instance court which gave its decision directing Ahmed Abdullah Hassan Al Qamish to pay the bank Dh15 million and Dh153,000 besides 9 per cent interest on the amount as dues pending since November 20, 2001 till the date of paying.

The defendant went to the court of appeals contesting the financial expert's report. Another expert was deputed by the court and his report resulted in the verdict of the first instance court being upheld. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Cassation pleading that the price of shares in 2001 is not the same as the current price. He submitted that the bank should subtract the difference in values of the shares in 2001 and now and deduct it from the debt. The bank didn't deduct the values of the rents of the villas, which he had built on the said plot. The defendant also argued that the bank didn't send him a statement of account for the amount, which he paid to the bank and also did not count the interest of 9 per cent from the date of shutting down the account till the date of the case.

Rejecting the appeal, the court observed that the defendant didn't furnish any evidence that the bank had got the values of the rent of the villas and also failed to prove that the value of the shares had decreased.