WINGCROWN INVESTMENT PTE. LTD. v MANNEPALLI GAYATRI RAM
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Damages |
| Counsel | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Kishan Law Chambers LLC, Jasmine Yan, Kishan Pratap, Mok Zi Cong, Ng Hui Min |
Source: [2023] SGHC 1, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd v Mannepalli Gayatri Ram [2023] SGHC 1 was decided in the General Division of the High Court (Originating Summons No 1092 of 2021) by See Kee Oon J, with grounds of decision delivered on 3 January 2023 after hearings on 19 July and 27 October 2022. The plaintiff, Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd, was the vendor and developer, and the defendant, Mannepalli Gayatri Ram, the purchaser under a sale and purchase agreement dated 2 July 2018 for a condominium unit at 105 Prince Charles Crescent, The Crest, Singapore 159019. After the defendant failed to complete, the plaintiff obtained a declaration that the agreement was validly terminated on 17 August 2021, and the hearing concerned the assessment of damages; the judge assessed the plaintiff was entitled to damages amounting to $720,960.84, and the defendant has appealed. The catchwords record damages assessment, referencing the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and Civil Law Act.
[2023] SGHC 1 explained
WINGCROWN INVESTMENT PTE. LTD. v MANNEPALLI GAYATRI RAM ([2023] SGHC 1) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 January 2023. It is categorised under Damages. 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 1 about?
WINGCROWN INVESTMENT PTE. LTD. v MANNEPALLI GAYATRI RAM ([2023] SGHC 1) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Damages — Assessment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 1 consider?
The judgment refers to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and Civil Law Act (Cap 43). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2023] SGHC 1?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 1 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
Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd, the developer and vendor, sued purchaser Mannepalli Gayatri Ram after she failed to complete the sale of a condominium unit at The Crest under a July 2018 sale and purchase agreement for $3.089m; the agreement had already been declared validly terminated, leaving only the assessment of damages. The court assessed the plaintiff's damages at $720,960.84, covering heads including delayed sale, reinstatement costs and legal costs, with interest at 5.33% and indemnity-basis costs of $45,000. The defendant has appealed.
How much in damages was assessed in Wingcrown Investment v Mannepalli Gayatri Ram [2023] SGHC 1?
See Kee Oon J assessed that the plaintiff, Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd, was entitled to damages amounting to $720,960.84 following the purchaser's failure to complete the sale of a condominium unit at The Crest. The defendant has appealed the decision.
What was the property dispute in [2023] SGHC 1?
The case concerned a sale and purchase agreement dated 2 July 2018 for a condominium unit at 105 Prince Charles Crescent, The Crest, Singapore 159019. After the purchaser failed to complete, the agreement was validly terminated on 17 August 2021, and the court assessed the vendor's damages.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 1)