PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR v LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR suing as the Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANIL VASSUDEVA SALGAOCAR deceased

[2023] SGHC(A) 21 High Court (Appellate Division) 5 June 2023 AD/CA 81/2022 18 min read

4 cases cited (3 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	5 June 2023
Judges	Aedit Abdullah, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Contract, Civil Procedure
Counsel	Drew & Napier LLC, Niru & Co LLC, Estad Amber Joy, Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan, Liew Teck Huat, Lim Gerui, Phang Cunkuang

Source: [2023] SGHC(A) 21, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 5 June 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Contractual Terms — Rules of construction Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Enforcement of negative covenant

Practice Areas

Contract Civil Procedure

Judges (2)

Aedit Abdullah Coram Woo Bih Li Delivered

Counsel (7)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Niru & Co LLC Firm Estad Amber Joy Counsel Appellant Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan Counsel Respondent Liew Teck Huat Counsel Respondent Lim Gerui Counsel Appellant Phang Cunkuang Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar Respondent Purnima Anil Salgaocar Appellant

Case Significance

Purnima Anil Salgaocar v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar, deceased) [2023] SGHC(A) 21 is a judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court, delivered on 5 June 2023 in Civil Appeal No 81 of 2022, with Woo Bih Li JAD delivering the judgment of the court sitting with Aedit Abdullah J. The appeal was against the judge's decision to grant an injunction in a dispute between a mother ("L") and her daughter ("P") over the estate of the family patriarch, Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar ("AVS"), who had filed HC/S 821/2015 against Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri claiming a trust before passing away intestate on 1 January 2016. Addressing the rules of construction of contractual terms and enforcement of a negative covenant, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction.

[2023] SGHC(A) 21 explained

PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR v LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR suing as the Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANIL VASSUDEVA SALGAOCAR deceased ([2023] SGHC(A) 21) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 5 June 2023. It is categorised under Contract and Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC(A) 21 about?

PURNIMA ANIL SALGAOCAR v LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR suing as the Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANIL VASSUDEVA SALGAOCAR deceased ([2023] SGHC(A) 21) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Contractual Terms — Rules of construction” and “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Enforcement of negative covenant”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC(A) 21 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 49 and [2023] SGHC 47. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2023] SGHC(A) 21?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC(A) 21 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

This appeal concerned a dispute between a mother and her daughter over the estate of the deceased family patriarch, and specifically the construction of clauses in a settlement agreement and whether a negative covenant could be enforced by injunction. The mother had obtained an injunction from the High Court against the daughter. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, holding that the daughter was not restricted to suing for breach of the settlement agreement and could proceed with her separate action, and ordered the mother to pay costs.

What was Purnima Anil Salgaocar v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar [2023] SGHC(A) 21 about?

It was an Appellate Division appeal decided on 5 June 2023, with Woo Bih Li JAD delivering the court's judgment, against the grant of an injunction in a dispute between a mother and daughter over the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar.

How did the court decide the appeal in [2023] SGHC(A) 21?

The Appellate Division, comprising Woo Bih Li JAD and Aedit Abdullah J, allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, the case concerning the construction of contractual terms and the enforcement of a negative covenant.