Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra

[2023] SGHC 125 High Court (General Division) 4 May 2023 HC/OA 203/2023

13 cases cited (11 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	4 May 2023
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Land
Counsel	Clasis LLC, Ethos Law Corporation, Koh Junxiang, Ng Pi Wei, Oh Kim Heoh Mimi, Prakash Pillai, Sandra Ooi Hui Shan

Source: [2023] SGHC 125, High Court (General Division), decided 4 May 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Land — Caveats — Remedies of caveatee

Practice Areas

Land

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (7)

Clasis LLC Firm Ethos Law Corporation Firm Koh Junxiang Counsel for the claimant Ng Pi Wei Counsel for the claimant Oh Kim Heoh Mimi Counsel for the defendant Prakash Pillai Counsel for the claimant

Sandra Ooi Hui Shan Counsel for the defendant

Parties (2)

Divya Bothra Defendant Nimisha Pandey Claimant

Case Significance

Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra [2023] SGHC 125 is a grounds of decision of Goh Yihan JC in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 4 May 2023 following a hearing on 30 March 2023 in Originating Application No 203 of 2023. The claimant, Ms Nimisha Pandey, the former owner of a property, lodged a caveat against it on 14 February 2023 as an unpaid vendor, and the defendant, Ms Divya Bothra, applied to cancel the caveat as vexatious under s 127(2) of the Land Titles Act 1993. Ms Pandey applied under s 127(4) for the caveat to be maintained, or for the balance of the purchase price to be paid into court, pending resolution of HC/OC 138/2023. Goh Yihan JC allowed the alternative prayer for the balance sum to be paid into court.

Summary

Nimisha Pandey, former owner of a property she had agreed to sell to Divya Bothra for $4m, lodged a caveat as an unpaid vendor after the buyer applied to cancel it as vexatious. Under section 127(4) of the Land Titles Act she sought either to maintain the caveat or to have the balance of the purchase price paid into court pending her separate claim. The High Court allowed the alternative relief, ordering the balance sum paid into court pending resolution of the related proceedings, with costs of $10,000 to the claimant.

What did the court decide in Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra [2023] SGHC 125?

Goh Yihan JC allowed Ms Nimisha Pandey's alternative prayer under s 127(4) of the Land Titles Act, ordering the balance of the purchase price to be paid into court pending resolution of HC/OC 138/2023. The decision was delivered on 4 May 2023.

Why was the caveat in Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra [2023] SGHC 125 disputed?

Ms Nimisha Pandey lodged a caveat on 14 February 2023 as an unpaid vendor of her former property, and Ms Divya Bothra applied under s 127(2) of the Land Titles Act 1993 to cancel it on the basis that it was vexatious.

Statutes Cited

Land Titles Act (Cap 157) Cases on this Act →

s 127(2)

Cases Cited (13)

SG (1)

[2017] SGHC 175

SLR (10)

[1990] 2 SLR(R) 705 [1993] 1 SLR(R) 598 [1994] 2 SLR(R) 814 [1994] 3 SLR(R) 536 [1996] 1 SLR(R) 70 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 484 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 181 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 [2017] 2 SLR 850

UK (2)

[1959] Ch 308 [1980] AC 331