DARSAN JITENDRA JHAVERI & 11 Ors v LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR suing as the Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANIL VASSUDEVA SALGAOCAR (India Passport No.HXXXXXXX),deceased & Anor
[2024] SGHC(A) 20 High Court (Appellate Division) 25 June 2024 • AD/CA 88/2023 ( AD/SUM 12/2024,AD/SUM 2/2024,AD/SUM 16/2024 ) • 17 min read
5 cases cited
(4 SG, 1 foreign)
Cited by 1 case
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (19)
Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm Niru & Co LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Chin Ming Fwu Counsel Appellant Daryl Wong Counsel Appellant Davinder Singh Counsel Respondent Eva Teh Jing Hui Counsel Appellant Jaikanth Shankar Counsel Respondent Jaspreet Singh Sachdev Counsel Respondent Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan Counsel Respondent Lim Wei Lee Counsel Appellant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Appellant Ng Shu Wen Counsel Respondent Rajaram Muralli Raja Counsel Appellant Ritesh Vaman Counsel Respondent Tan Chee Meng Counsel Appellant Victoria Yu Counsel Appellant Wee Min Counsel Appellant
Parties (15)
Capital Glory Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Great Newton Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Millers Capital Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Newton Noble Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Nova Raffles Holdings Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Holdings Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Shipping Pte Ltd Appellant Sino Ling Tao Resources Pte Ltd Appellant Sino Noble Asset Management Pte Ltd Appellant Winter Meadow Capital Inc Respondent Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Appellant Kwan Ka Yu Terence Third Party Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) Respondent
Case Significance
Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another [2024] SGHC(A) 20 was a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, sitting with Debbie Ong Siew Ling and See Kee Oon, on 25 June 2024. Decided in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 2, 12 and 16 of 2024), the grounds addressed civil procedure questions of striking out and extension of time, again forming part of the litigation in Suit No 821 of 2015 brought by the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar and Winter Meadow Capital Inc against Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and a series of corporate defendants.
The appellants, Mr Jhaveri and 11 corporate entities including Singapore Star Holdings Pte Ltd and Nova Raffles Holdings Pte Ltd, were represented by counsel from WongPartnership LLP and K&L Gates Straits Law LLC, including Tan Chee Meng and Narayanan Sreenivasan. The respondents were represented by Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC and counsel from Niru & Co LLC.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
25 June 2024
Case summary
Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another [2024] SGHC(A) 20
AD/CA No 88 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 2, 12 and 16 of 2024)
AD/CA No 88 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 2, 12 and 16 of 2024)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li):
Outcome: The AD made no order on two applications to adduce and rely on further evidence at the hearing of an appeal. It also dismissed an application to strike out an appeal on the basis that it had been filed out of time and no extension of time was to be granted.
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
• Generally speaking, no leave is required to rely on documents for the purpose of persuading the court not to hear an appeal. Leave is only required to rely on evidence pertaining to the substantive issues of contention between the parties at trial which have subsequently been taken up on appeal: at [12] to [13].
Background
1 Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar (“Mr Salgaocar”) commenced a claim against Mr Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri (“Mr Darsan”) for breaches of trust. Subsequently, several Singapore companies as well as Mr Darsan’s wife and daughter were joined as defendants. Another British Virgin Islands-incorporated company, Winter Meadow Capital Inc, was joined as a plaintiff.
2 Mr Salgaocar passed away after the suit was commenced. The trial judge (“Judge”) found in favour of Mr Salgaocar’s estate. Dissatisfied with the Judge’s decision, Mr Darsan and the Singapore companies (collectively, the “Appellants”) filed an appeal (“AD 88”).
3 Mr Salgaocar’s estate and Winter Meadow Capital Inc (collectively, the “Respondents”) filed AD/SUM 2/2023 (“SUM 2”) on 5 January 2024 for permission to adduce and rely on further evidence at the hearing of AD 88. This pertained primarily to the documents relating to the various applications brought by the parties before the Singapore and Indian courts and the relevant orders made.
4 On 21 February 2024, the Respondents brought AD/SUM 12/2024 (“SUM 12”) to strike out AD 88 and for an extension of time to be granted for the filing of this summons. The striking out application was brought on the basis that AD 88 was an abuse of the process of the court based on the Hadkinson principle (which originates from the case of Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P. 285). This principle allows a court to exercise a discretion to refuse to hear a party in contempt unless and until he has purged his contempt.
5 Finally, the Respondents applied in AD/SUM 16/2024 (“SUM 16”) on 20 March 2024 for permission to adduce and rely on further evidence at the hearing of AD 88. This evidence included documents pertaining to developments in proceedings between the parties before the Indian courts, which were filed between January and March 2024.
Decision
The Court made no order on the Respondents’ applications to adduce further evidence (SUM 2 and SUM 16)
6 Generally speaking, no leave is required to rely on documents for the purpose of persuading the court not to hear an appeal. This was borne out by the context in which Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745 (“Ladd v Marshall”), the case setting out the requirements which need to be met for additional evidence to be adduced on appeal, was decided: at [12].
7 The Ladd v Marshall requirements also suggest that the evidence sought to be adduced on appeal must pertain to the substantive issues of contention between the parties at trial which have subsequently been taken up on appeal. These requirements suggest that evidence pertaining to a matter which was neither an issue at trial nor a substantive issue on appeal will not attract the application of these requirements: at [13] to [14].
8 SUM 2 and SUM 16 sought to adduce documents only for the purpose of the Respondents’ argument that the court should not hear the Appellants in AD 88 on the basis of the Hadkinson principle. As this argument did not relate to the substantive issues in AD 88 but only to the issue of whether the court should exercise its discretion not to hear the Appellants until Mr Darsan’s alleged acts of contempt, intimidation or harassment had ceased, no leave was required to use the documents: at [15].
The Court dismissed SUM 12
9 In deciding if an extension of time should be granted for the filing of a striking out application, the court must have “some material” upon which it can exercise its discretion. This encompasses an assessment of: (a) the length of the delay, (b) the reason for the delay, (c) the merits of the “proceeding” in question, and (d) the question of prejudice: at [19].
10 The length of delay was not a short one. Although the factual basis upon which SUM 12 was founded upon included matters which occurred after 28 August 2023, this did not mean that there was no delay. By the Respondents’ own admission, 1 December 2023 was the date on which it made clear its position that it would be an abuse of process for the Appellants to be permitted to pursue AD 88. This must mean that the factual substratum underlying SUM 12 had been available to the Respondents from 1 December 2023 and so any delay should be assessed from this date. On this basis, there was a substantial delay of more than two and a half months before SUM 12 was filed on 21 February 2024: at [29].
11 Even if the Court considered SUM 2 as being an active step taken by the Respondents to persuade the court that Mr Darsan’s conduct was an abuse of process, the delay between 1 December 2023 and 5 January 2024, when SUM 2 was filed, could not be characterised as insubstantial. The Respondents also provided no good reasons for the delay. On the contrary, it was open to them to have filed a striking out application at any time following 1 December 2023: at [29] to [30].
12 All things considered, the Court dismissed the application for an extension of time for the filing of SUM 12. There was thus no need for the Court to deal with the striking out application as it had been filed out of time: at [37].
13 In any event, the Court was not persuaded that AD 88 should be struck out peremptorily or that it should decline to hear AD 88 in the circumstances: at [38] to [40].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
What was decided in Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar [2024] SGHC(A) 20?
It was a 2024 Appellate Division of the High Court decision delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD on 25 June 2024, addressing civil procedure issues of striking out and extension of time in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023, arising from Suit No 821 of 2015.
How does [2024] SGHC(A) 20 relate to [2024] SGHC(A) 19?
Both [2024] SGHC(A) 20 and [2024] SGHC(A) 19 were decided on 25 June 2024 by Woo Bih Li JAD, sitting with Debbie Ong Siew Ling and See Kee Oon, in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023, but 20 concerned striking out and extension of time across different summonses.
Cases Cited (5)
SG (2)
[2021] SGCA 48 [2023] SGHC 47
SLR (2)
[2019] 2 SLR 341 [2022] 2 SLR 521
UK (1)
[1954] 3 All ER 745
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC(A) 20)