NATIXIS, SINGAPORE BRANCH v SESHADRI RAJAGOPALAN & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 113 consider?

The judgment refers to Administration of Justice Act, Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Interpretation Act (Cap 1), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 113 High Court (General Division) 2 May 2024 HC/OS 903/2021 · HC/OS 902/2021 · HC/OS 23/2022 64 min read

11 cases cited (7 SG, 4 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	2 May 2024
Judge	S Mohan
Charges / claim	Admiralty and Shipping, Insolvency Law
Counsel	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP, Resource Law LLC, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, TSMP Law Corporation, Choi Yee Hang Ian, Jonathan Lim Shi Cao, Lee Chong Jie, Lee Koon Foong Adam Hariz, Lin Weiwen Moses, Manvindar Kaur Sethi D/O Sarwan Singh, Ryan Mark Lopez, Seah Lee Guan Collin, Sonia Elizabeth Rajendra, Soong Jun De, Sze Kian Chuan, Tan Shi Yun Jolene, Tessa Lim Yong Rong, Thio Shen Yi

Source: [2024] SGHC 113, High Court (General Division), decided 2 May 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Admiralty and Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Action in rem — Statutory liens Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ renders the in rem writ claimant a creditor of the owner of the vessel within the meaning of s 115 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Ex parte James principle — Whether the Ex parte James principle affords a free-standing right to recover the net proceeds of the sale of the vessel in Gibraltar — Whether the conduct of the judicial managers rose to a level of opprobrium that required intervention by the court Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Disposal of assets — Sale of vessel effected by judicial sale in Gibraltar following arrest by the mortgagee — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ in Singapore causes a vessel to be subject to a security within the meaning of s 100(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act

Practice Areas

Admiralty and Shipping Insolvency Law

Judges (1)

S Mohan Delivered

Counsel (18)

Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Firm Resource Law LLC Firm Shook Lin & Bok LLP Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Choi Yee Hang Ian Counsel Plaintiff Jonathan Lim Shi Cao Counsel Plaintiff Lee Chong Jie Counsel Plaintiff Lee Koon Foong Adam Hariz Counsel Defendant Lin Weiwen Moses Counsel Plaintiff Manvindar Kaur Sethi D/O Sarwan Singh Counsel Plaintiff Ryan Mark Lopez Counsel Plaintiff Seah Lee Guan Collin Counsel Plaintiff Sonia Elizabeth Rajendra Counsel Defendant Soong Jun De Counsel Plaintiff Sze Kian Chuan Counsel Defendant Tan Shi Yun Jolene Counsel Defendant Tessa Lim Yong Rong Counsel Plaintiff Thio Shen Yi Counsel Defendant

Parties (6)

Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd Defendant Natixis, Singapore Branch Plaintiff Societe Generale, Singapore Branch Plaintiff The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Plaintiff Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia Defendant Seshadri Rajagopalan Defendant

Case Significance

Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others [2024] SGHC 113 was decided by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, with S Mohan J as the delivering judge, in the matter of Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation). The decision concerned Originating Summons No 902 of 2021 (brought by Natixis, Singapore Branch), Originating Summons No 903 of 2021 (brought by Societe Generale, Singapore Branch), and Originating Summons No 23 of 2022 (brought by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited), each against Seshadri Rajagopalan, Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia, and Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation). The matter raised admiralty and shipping issues concerning admiralty jurisdiction and arrest, actions in rem and statutory liens, alongside insolvency law issues on the administration of insolvent estates and judicial management. These included whether the issuance of an in rem writ in Singapore causes a vessel to be subject to a security within section 100(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, whether such issuance renders the in rem writ claimant a creditor within section 115, and whether the Ex parte James principle affords a free-standing right to recover the net proceeds of the sale of a vessel in Gibraltar (sold by judicial sale following arrest by the mortgagee) and whether the judicial managers' conduct rose to a level of opprobrium requiring the court's intervention. The plaintiffs were represented by firms including Resource Law LLC and Shook Lin & Bok LLP, and the defendants by Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP and TSMP Law Corporation, including Thio Shen Yi.

[2024] SGHC 113 explained

NATIXIS, SINGAPORE BRANCH v SESHADRI RAJAGOPALAN & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 113) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 2 May 2024. It is categorised under Admiralty and Shipping and Insolvency Law. 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 113 about?

NATIXIS, SINGAPORE BRANCH v SESHADRI RAJAGOPALAN & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 113) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Admiralty and Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Action in rem — Statutory liens”, “Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ renders the in rem writ claimant a creditor of the owner of the vessel within the meaning of s 115 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act”, “Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Ex parte James principle — Whether the Ex parte James principle affords a free-standing right to recover the net proceeds of the sale of the vessel in Gibraltar — Whether the conduct of the judicial managers rose to a level of opprobrium that required intervention by the court”, and “Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Judicial management — Disposal of assets — Sale of vessel effected by judicial sale in Gibraltar following arrest by the mortgagee — Whether the issuance of an in rem writ in Singapore causes a vessel to be subject to a security within the meaning of s 100(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act”, 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 113 consider?

The judgment refers to Administration of Justice Act, Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Interpretation Act (Cap 1), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 113?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 113 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

In these General Division of the High Court proceedings, three banks that had commenced admiralty actions in rem against the vessel "CHANG BAI SAN" over claims for misdelivery or loss of cargo sought relief in the judicial management of Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd, the registered owner of the vessel, after the vessel had been arrested by the mortgagee and sold by judicial sale in Gibraltar. The issues included whether the issuance of an in rem writ rendered the claimants creditors or caused the vessel to be subject to a security under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and whether the Ex parte James principle afforded a free-standing right to recover the net sale proceeds. The court held that the judicial managers' conduct did not rise to the level of misconduct or impropriety attracting the Ex parte James principle, rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on that principle, and dismissed all three originating summonses with costs.

What was Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan [2024] SGHC 113 about?

[2024] SGHC 113 concerned admiralty and insolvency issues arising from Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd's liquidation, including whether an in rem writ makes a vessel subject to security under section 100(2)(a) of the IRDA and the Ex parte James principle. S Mohan J of the High Court delivered the decision.

Which banks brought the applications in Natixis v Seshadri Rajagopalan [2024] SGHC 113?

Three banks brought applications in the matter of Nan Chiau Maritime (Pte) Ltd: Natixis, Singapore Branch (OS No 902 of 2021), Societe Generale, Singapore Branch (OS No 903 of 2021), and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (OS No 23 of 2022), against Seshadri Rajagopalan and others.