Latest news with #AlaaNasr
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai orders buyer to pay Dhs1.68 million to seller over failed property deal
Dubai Real Estate Court has issued a verdict obligating the buyer of a real estate unit to pay the seller Dhs1.68 million accounting for 80 per cent of the down payment amounting to Dhs2.1 million held by the real estate brokerage company under a cheque deposit. The court also obligated the buyer to pay a 5 per cent annual legal interest from the date of the lawsuit until full payment, as compensation for the delay in fulfilling the obligation to purchase the property. Earlier, the seller of a real estate unit filed a lawsuit in which he requested the court to annul the sale contract, which stipulated that if the buyer withdrew after signing the agreement, he must pay a penalty of 10 per cent of the total value of the transaction, 80 per cent of which would go to the seller and 20 per cent to the broker. According to the official documents, the 809.11 square meter unit was valued at Dhs21 million. Under the contract concluded in January 2025, the buyer committed to paying a down payment of Dhs2.1 million in the form of a cheque deposit to be held by the seller's broker. The remaining Dhs18.9 million was to be paid upon registering the property in the buyer's name or through a secured payment method approved by the Land Department. The contract stipulated that its term would expire in mid-March 2025, but the buyer failed to pay the remaining amount or complete the transaction within the specified period, despite being formally notified before the expiry date. This prompted the seller to file a lawsuit demanding the contract's expiration to be substantiated and he be given his share of the down payment and legal interest. Based on the clause relating to the penalty for buyer withdrawal, the court ruled that Dhs1.68 million, accounting for 80 per cent of the down payment was entitled to the seller. The real estate brokerage company had not requested its 20 per cent share and therefore was not given to it. According to Dr. Alaa Nasr, seller's legal representative, the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that paying a down payment is evidence that the contract has become final and cannot be withdrawn from unless the agreement or custom stipulates otherwise. If the contracting parties agree that the down payment is a penalty for withdrawing from the contract, each of them has the right to withdraw, he said. Thus, if the one who has paid the down payment withdraws, he loses it, and if the one who received it withdraws, he must return it plus an equivalent amount, he added.
Gulf Today
10-06-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court rejects mother's plea seeking partition of villa she co-owns with her son
Dubai Real Estate Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Asian woman seeking to cancel the co-ownership of a villa in Dubai between herself and her son, as each owns a 50% share. The court ruled that the villa, designated for single-family occupancy, cannot be divided into two equal portions. According to case details, the plaintiff stated that she intended to transfer her share of the property to her other son to ensure fairness and equality among her children. When she asked the property developer to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the sale and transfer process, the developer refused to issue the certificate due to the absence and non-cooperation of her son, who is a co-owner of the property. Case documents revealed that the plaintiff had previously filed a lawsuit before the Dubai Personal Status Court but the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, prompting her to file the case before the Real Estate Court, requesting either the allocation of her share or the partition of the property to enable her to sell her portion to her other son. The court appointed a specialised expert to determine the feasibility of partitioning. The legal representative of the son argued for the dismissal of the case, citing the impossibility of division since the villa is designed for single-family occupancy and cannot be separated. The expert's report affirmed that the villa consists of a ground floor and a first floor, currently occupied by a tenant, and is designated for single-family use, making it impossible to divide into two equal shares. The expert also assessed the villa's market value at Dhs5.25 million, based on official data from the Dubai Land Department. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the appellee, explained that the court's rejection of the plaintiff's claims was based on the provisions of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that the jointly owned property must be divisible and the expert's report conclusively established the impossibility of fairly dividing the property.
Gulf Today
03-06-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai merchant who owes Dhs13.6 million declared bankrupt
Dubai Civil Court of Appeal upheld the bankruptcy of a merchant and appointed an expert to liquidate his assets and settle his obligations to creditors. The decision came after all previous attempts to resolve his financial situation had been exhausted and he had ceased to pay his debts. The case dated back to May 2024, when a merchant (the debtor) filed a request to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, citing his deteriorating financial situation and failure to pay his debts for over 30 working days. The debtor had previously filed an insolvency application with Dubai Courts, but the court rejected his request after reviewing the accounting expert's report. The debtor appealed the verdict, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision issued by the Court of First Instance and rejected the appeal in form and content. The case papers indicated that, in light of the merchant's ongoing financial difficulties, he once again filed for bankruptcy. The Court of First Instance reviewed the application and appointed an expert to assess his financial situation. The court ordered the debtor to submit all documents relating to the companies he was associated with and the percentage of his shares in them. These companies were found to be affiliated with a food company. The court decided to accept the request to initiate bankruptcy proceedings and the trustee began his task and prepared a final list of accepted debts including four creditors with total claims amounting to Dhs13.6 million. While no grievances were filed against the list, some banks requested that the case be dismissed for not meeting the legal requirements stipulated in article 73 of the bankruptcy law. The court, however, continued the proceedings and issued its ruling declaring the merchant's bankrupt, with the trustee still appointed to carry out inventory and liquidation operations and distribute the proceeds to creditors. Dr. Alaa Nasr, the merchant's legal representative, said that the verdict includes exempting the debtor of the task of managing his funds and ordering him to hand over all documents and assets to the trustee within five days. The court also ordered a seizure of all his balances and properties including bank accounts, real estate and vehicles on a precautionary basis, while assigning the competent authorities to disclose any property belonging to him. In addition, the court obligated him to submit the financial statements and profits of the companies in which he owned shares.
Gulf Today
17-05-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court orders liquidation of firm after creditors file a claim of Dhs3.7m against it
The Dubai Commercial Court has ordered the liquidation of a company operating in the building materials trade, appointing a legal administrator to oversee the process and inventory assets, settle liabilities, and distribute any remaining funds or movable assets to creditors. The decision came after a creditor filed a claim of Dhs3.7 million against the company, an amount 12 times its capital of Dhs300,000. The case details reveal that the creditor sued the company, demanding its dissolution and liquidation. The creditor argued that the company's losses exceeded its capital, it had completely ceased operations, lacked assets to fulfill obligations to creditors, had no registered headquarters, faced multiple lawsuits, and had frozen bank accounts. The judge appointed a specialised accounting expert, whose report confirmed the absence of audited financial statements or accounting records. The report stated that the company's losses reached Dhs4 million, indicating its capital had been depleted. Additionally, the company owned no fixed or movable assets and had no active bank accounts. Satisfied with the expert's findings, the court ordered the company's liquidation. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the claimant, noted that Decree No. 32 of 2021 on Commercial Companies outlines several conditions for dissolving a company, including: the expiration of the term specified in the contract or articles of association (unless renewed), the achievement of the purpose for which the company was established, or the depletion of all or most of its funds.
Gulf Today
13-05-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court obliges real estate firm to return Dhs1.267m to plot purchasers
Dubai Real Estate Court ordered a real estate development company to refund Dhs1,267,000 to two buyers, whom the company had sold a plot of land to build a residential villa but the company failed to deliver the land. The court also rejected the inclusion of a second company in the case, as it provided evidence of returning the amount it had received from the buyers. According to the case documents, the plaintiffs signed a land sale contract to build a residential villa, purchasing a plot from the appellee company for a total of Dhs1,334,000 and on the same date, the second appellee company signed a civil works management services contract with the plaintiffs, committing to construct a villa on the plot. Payments were agreed to be made in three installments and the first company received Dhs1,467,000 from the plaintiffs, including Dhs1,334,000 for the land and Dhs133,000 as the first installment for construction costs. The first company allegedly failed to deliver the land to the plaintiffs and both companies signed a termination agreement for the sale contract and the services management contract, with the first company pledging to refund the amount received from the plaintiffs, but it did not fulfill this obligation. The court noted that the first company did not provide evidence of clearing its debt or returning the amount received, having transferred only Dhs66,000, and thus, it still owes Dhs1,267,000. The court also rejected the inclusion of the second company in the case, as it provided proof of returning the amount it had received from the plaintiffs. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the plaintiffs, stated that Article 246 of the Civil Transactions Law obligates contracting parties to fulfill the terms of the contract, and the contractor must execute the contract as agreed.
