date_range
Friday 02 Oct 2026
LOCAL EDITION
close
LOCAL EDITION
Abandoned water bungalows at Dholhiyadhoo Island Resort (also known as Zitahli Resorts & Spa Dholhiyadhoo) in Shaviyani Atoll. (Photo/Out Chasing Stars)
The High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed against the Civil Court’s decision permitting the State Bank of India (SBI) to sell the mortgaged leasehold rights of the Dholhiyadhoo Island Resort. The Civil Court had authorised SBI to proceed with the sale for USD 9 million. A majority of the High Court bench rejected the appeal.
The case was filed by Dholhiyadhoo Investments Pvt Ltd and loan guarantors Ahmed Hamza, Mohamed Latheef, Abdulla Ali, Ali Shiyam and Ibrahim Jihad. The dispute dates back to 2015, when SBI sought Civil Court approval to sell the resort after Dholhiyadhoo Investments failed to repay term loans taken in 2006 and 2008.
Although the parties had previously agreed to sell the mortgaged lease at three different prices, the resort was never sold. The Civil Court later granted SBI a fourth authorisation to sell the mortgage for USD 9 million. Dholhiyadhoo Investments appealed this decision, arguing that the extension of the mortgage was granted contrary to Regulation 164 of the Civil Procedure Regulations and that SBI had been negligent in advertising the sale.
SBI submitted a procedural objection, contending that the points raised did not meet the threshold for an appeal and that the case amounted to an abuse of due process under Section 421 of the Civil Procedure Act, intended solely to delay enforcement and postpone repayment.
The High Court majority accepted SBI’s procedural objection. The judges noted that no complaints were raised when the mortgage was advertised and authorised for sale on three previous occasions. They further held that challenging the sale only after the reserve price was reduced could not be considered a good‑faith claim, and constituted a waste of judicial time and an abuse of procedure.
Accordingly, the majority dismissed the appeal under Article 421(d) of the Civil Procedure Act.
The case was presided over by Justice Hussain Mazeed, with Justice Ismail Shafeeu and Justice Abdul Rauf Ibrahim serving on the bench.
