PRADEEPTO KUMAR BISWAS v SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE & Anor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Audrey Lim, See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Carson Law Chambers, Drew & Napier LLC, Joshua Quek Wen Chieh, Lim Tean, See Chern Yang |
Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 3, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another [2024] SGHC(A) 3 was an application in the Appellate Division of the High Court (Originating Application No 54 of 2023) decided by See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J, with judgment reserved on 27 December 2023 and delivered on 31 January 2024 by Audrey Lim J on behalf of the court. The applicant, Mr Pradeepto Kumar Biswas, sought an extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal against the decision of Goh Yihan J in HC/SUM 268/2023. The court noted that while the four factors applicable to an extension of time were well-settled and not in dispute, the considerations relating to the third factor (the prospect of success) merited clarification in the context of an application for extension of time to file an application for permission to appeal. Procedurally, on 1 December 2022 the Assistant Registrar had adjudged the applicant a bankrupt in HC/B 2425/2021.
[2024] SGHC(A) 3 explained
PRADEEPTO KUMAR BISWAS v SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE & Anor ([2024] SGHC(A) 3) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 31 January 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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) 3 about?
PRADEEPTO KUMAR BISWAS v SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE & Anor ([2024] SGHC(A) 3) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Applicable legal principles for extension of time to file an application for permission to appeal — Prospect of success”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(A) 3 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2024] SGHC(A) 3?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(A) 3 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas applied to the Appellate Division of the High Court for an extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal against a decision of Goh Yihan J in HC/SUM 268/2023, which concerned bankruptcy proceedings and an attempt to adduce fresh evidence. The court addressed the four settled factors governing extensions of time, clarifying the considerations relevant to the third factor, the prospect of success, in the context of an application for permission to appeal. The court awarded costs against the applicant on an indemnity basis, fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements, having found his conduct to warrant such an order.
What did Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee [2024] SGHC(A) 3 address?
It addressed an application by Pradeepto Kumar Biswas for an extension of time to file for permission to appeal against Goh Yihan J's decision in HC/SUM 268/2023, with the Appellate Division clarifying how the prospect-of-success factor applies in that context.
Which legal factor did the court clarify in [2024] SGHC(A) 3?
See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J held that, although the four extension-of-time factors were well-settled, the third factor, the prospect of success, merited clarification when the extension sought is to file an application for permission to appeal.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (20)
Cited By (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC(A) 3)