UCO BANK, SINGAPORE BRANCH v GREEN MINT PTE LTD & 2 Ors

[2023] SGHC 72 High Court (General Division) 28 March 2023 HC/S 153/2022 ( HC/SUM 4463/2022 )

7 cases cited (6 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	28 March 2023
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Oon & Bazul LLP, Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader, Caleb Tan Jia Chween, Chan Cong Yen Lionel

Source: [2023] SGHC 72, High Court (General Division), decided 28 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Inherent powers — Defendant not filing defence — Judgment on the merits of the claim

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (4)

Oon & Bazul LLP Firm Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader Counsel for the plaintiff Caleb Tan Jia Chween Counsel for the plaintiff Chan Cong Yen Lionel Counsel for the plaintiff

Parties (4)

Green Mint Pte Ltd Defendant

UCO Bank, Singapore Branch Plaintiff

Arvind Sharma Defendant

Gupta Vaibhav Defendant

Case Significance

UCO Bank, Singapore Branch v Green Mint Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 72 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Goh Yihan JC on 28 March 2023, in Suit No 153 of 2022 (Summons No 4463 of 2022). The plaintiff bank applied for judgment on the merits, on a summary basis, against the second defendant Mr Gupta Vaibhav under a personal guarantee relating to funds extended to the first defendant, Green Mint Pte Ltd, or alternatively for the matter to proceed to trial. The judgment addressed why a judgment on the merits was sought rather than a default judgment, namely that India, where enforcement against the second defendant's assets was intended, does not treat a foreign judgment not given on the merits as conclusive.

Summary

UCO Bank, Singapore Branch sought a judgment on the merits against Mr Gupta Vaibhav, the second defendant, in his capacity as guarantor for funds extended to Green Mint Pte Ltd. Because India would not recognise a default judgment as conclusive for enforcement against the defendant's assets there, the bank pressed for a determination on the merits rather than a default judgment. The court was satisfied the claim was made out and granted judgment on the merits for US$925,361.73 plus interest and costs.

What was the plaintiff seeking in UCO Bank v Green Mint [2023] SGHC 72?

UCO Bank, Singapore Branch sought judgment on the merits, on a summary basis, against the second defendant Mr Gupta Vaibhav under a personal guarantee tied to funds extended to Green Mint Pte Ltd, or alternatively for the matter to proceed to trial.

Why did the plaintiff in UCO Bank v Green Mint seek judgment on the merits rather than in default ([2023] SGHC 72)?

The judgment records that India, where the plaintiff intended to enforce against the second defendant's assets, does not recognise a foreign judgment not given on the merits of a claim as conclusive, so a merits-based judgment was pursued instead of a default judgment.