RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors
Outcome
Appeal dismissedwe dismissed the appeal in its entirety and awarded costs in favour of the Respondents on the indemnity basis (as mandated by the contractual arrangements) in the sum of $85,000 all-in.
Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 29, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 24 September 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Philip Jeyaretnam, Woo Bih Li |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Tort |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
| Sentence / award | $85,000 |
| Counsel | Gabriel Law Corporation, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Jodi Siah Be Koen, Nandwani Manoj Prakash, Quah Chun En Joel (Ke Chun'en), Sameer Bin Amir Melber, Sim Jek Sok Disa |
Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 29, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC(A) 29 was decided in the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore on 24 September 2024, with Philip Jeyaretnam J delivering the grounds of decision of the court, sitting with Woo Bih Li JAD and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD; the matter was heard on 16 August 2024. The appeal arose from Civil Appeal No 9 of 2024, in the matter of Suit No 295 of 2020, in which Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani was the appellant and INTL FCStone Pte Ltd, Chandrawati Alie and Song Oi Lan were the respondents, with INTL FCStone Pte Ltd having brought a counterclaim against him below.
The case concerned an investor whose holdings had been financed by a broker-dealer and stood as security for the amounts financed, where the financing agreement provided for unilateral actions the broker-dealer could take to limit its exposure; before taking such steps, the broker-dealer offered the investor time to bring his account back into balance, and the investor gave instructions over the course of one day to sell off his holdings. The catchwords frame the issues as breach of contract, contractual terms, duress through illegitimate pressure, undue influence, and the torts of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The appellant was represented by counsel from Gabriel Law Corporation, including Nandwani Manoj Prakash, Quah Chun En Joel (Ke Chun'en) and Sameer Bin Amir Melber, while the respondents were represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, including Jodi Siah Be Koen and Sim Jek Sok Disa.
[2024] SGHC(A) 29 explained
RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC(A) 29) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 24 September 2024. It is categorised under Contract and Tort. 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 [2024] SGHC(A) 29 about?
RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC(A) 29) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Contract — Undue influence”, “Contract — Contractual terms”, and “Contract — Duress — Illegitimate pressure”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC(A) 29 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 18. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
What issues did Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC(A) 29 concern?
Decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court on 24 September 2024, the appeal concerned breach of contract, contractual terms, duress through illegitimate pressure, undue influence, and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, arising from an investor's financed holdings sold off over one day with a broker-dealer.
Who were the judges and parties in [2024] SGHC(A) 29?
In Civil Appeal No 9 of 2024, Philip Jeyaretnam J delivered the court's grounds of decision, sitting with Woo Bih Li JAD and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD. Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani was appellant; INTL FCStone Pte Ltd, Chandrawati Alie and Song Oi Lan were respondents.
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC(A) 29)