Edification of a guarantor of 45.4 million dirhams for not being proven signed

The Dubai Court of Cassation upheld a ruling ruled by the two courts and the appeal of the acquittal of a guarantee of guarantee and guarantee due to a foreign bank worth 45 million and 482 thousand dirhams, after confirming the report of the Criminal Laboratory of Dubai Police that he did not sign the bail as a guarantor of credit facilities obtained by the first -year -old city company, “The First Prosecutor”, by 104 million and 163 thousand dirhams It increases it to 211 million and 248 thousand dirhams.

In detail, one of the banks filed a commercial lawsuit against the company “Asili” and a number of sponsors, asking them to perform solidarity among them 45 million and 482 thousand dirhams with the delay interest.

He said in a statement that he granted the original debtor to be a variety of credit facilities in the amount of 104 million and 163 thousand dirhams, and it was increased to 211 million and 248 thousand dirhams with the guarantee of sponsors, but the original debtor refrained from paying the debt demanded.

In turn, the arbitrator and legal advisor, Mohamed Naguib, as a representative of the third defendant, explained that the latter prompted the expiration of the guarantee that he released with the first batch of credit facilities by paying the debt due from that guarantee, and he said that the third defendant did not renew his sponsorship to ensure the subsequent new facilities that the bank referred to in his demand, unlike the rest of the sponsors, and adhered to challenging the forgery of the bail that is attributed to him, as they are. Not edited in his handwriting, and a banking expert and another from the Dubai Police Criminal Laboratory to examine the line and signatures.

In turn, the court responded to the request, and the criminal laboratory was assigned to the Dubai Police to perform the metaphor over the two guarantors attributed to the guarantor, and the report ended that the third defendant did not edit his fixed name with the bonding bond the subject of the examination, and he did not edit the fixed signatures of the two bonds attributed to them.

The court also displaced a banking expert that ended that the bank takes place from the defendants, the second, third, fifth and sixth (sponsors), separately, on an irreversible guarantee by ensuring the obligations that are due to the first defendant (the original debtor), from the beginning of granting facilities in 2014, and with the bank’s approval to grant new credit facilities in later years, he was keen to renew the guarantees of the guarantees (the second And the fourth and sixth only without the third defendant).

After hearing the papers submitted by the two parties, the Court of First Class ruled that all defendants compel the defendants, except for the third defendant, to perform the bank 45 million, 482 thousand and 475 dirhams, and the benefit of 5% of the date of 1/3/2022 until the completion of payment, and rejected other requests.

For his part, the bank appealed the first degree ruling before the Court of Appeal, which ended that the court of first degree is reassuring the result that the criminal laboratory has ended, regarding the lack of safety of the third defendant or his editing of the bond bond, and believes that the bank’s demand from it is not based on a valid support.

The bank also continued the judicial path by challenging the first two ruling and appeal before the Court of Cassation, which ended that the ruling issued to reject the lawsuit against the third defendant did not violate the law or fixed in the papers, and then the bank’s demand for it is not based on a valid support, and then ruled to refuse to appeal and compel the bank to expenses.