TARUN HOTCHAND CHAINANI v AVINDERPAL SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 5 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHCR 5 High Court Registrar 30 May 2023 HC/S 703/2020 ( HC/SUM 671/2023 ) 25 min read

15 cases cited (5 SG, 10 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	30 May 2023
Judge	Wong Hee Jinn
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Gabriel Law Corporation, Legis Point LLC, Anne-Marie John, Chacko Samuel, Nur Halimatul Syafheqah binte Rosman

Source: [2023] SGHCR 5, High Court Registrar, decided 30 May 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Admissions Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Wong Hee Jinn Delivered

Counsel (5)

Gabriel Law Corporation Firm Legis Point LLC Firm Anne-Marie John Counsel Plaintiff Chacko Samuel Counsel Plaintiff Nur Halimatul Syafheqah binte Rosman Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

Avitar Enterprises Pte Ltd Defendant Avitar Holdings Pte Ltd Defendant Avinderpal Singh s/o Ranjit Singh Defendant Tarun Hotchand Chainani Plaintiff

Case Significance

Tarun Hotchand Chainani v Avinderpal Singh s/o Ranjit Singh and others [2023] SGHCR 5 is a grounds of decision of AR Wong Hee Jinn in the General Division of the High Court, heard on 17 April 2023 and delivered on 30 May 2023 in Suit No 703 of 2020 (Summons No 671 of 2023). By the application, the plaintiff Tarun Hotchand Chainani sought to strike out a sentence (the "Impugned Sentence") in the first defendant's Defence (Amendment No 2) dated 20 February 2023, which had been inserted under the auspices of a consequential amendment following the plaintiff's Statement of Claim (Amendment No 3). The defendants also included Avitar Enterprises Pte Ltd and Avitar Holdings Pte Ltd. The court considered whether the proposed amendment was in fact a consequential amendment and whether an amendment seeking to resile from an admission in the same pleading could be struck out.

[2023] SGHCR 5 explained

TARUN HOTCHAND CHAINANI v AVINDERPAL SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 5) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 30 May 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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] SGHCR 5 about?

TARUN HOTCHAND CHAINANI v AVINDERPAL SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 5) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment”, “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Admissions”, and “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 5 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Former business partners Tarun Hotchand Chainani and Avinderpal Singh, co-shareholders and directors of related electronics companies, were in dispute, and the plaintiff applied to strike out a sentence inserted in the first defendant's amended defence. The issue was whether the insertion was a permissible consequential amendment or an impermissible attempt to resile from a prior admission. The Assistant Registrar found it impermissibly re-opened an admitted issue, allowed the application, and ordered the first defendant to pay $5,500 in costs.

What was Tarun Hotchand Chainani v Avinderpal Singh [2023] SGHCR 5 about?

It was a pleadings dispute before AR Wong Hee Jinn, decided on 30 May 2023, in which plaintiff Tarun Hotchand Chainani sought to strike out an "Impugned Sentence" inserted in the first defendant's Defence (Amendment No 2) dated 20 February 2023.

What pleadings issues arose in [2023] SGHCR 5?

The court considered whether the disputed insertion was truly a consequential amendment following the plaintiff's Statement of Claim (Amendment No 3), and whether an amendment seeking to resile from an admission made in that same pleading could be struck out.