RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 18 consider?

The judgment refers to He also says that the defendants cannot rely on them as they are subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 18 High Court (General Division) 24 January 2024 HC/S 295/2020 107 min read

8 cases cited (6 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	24 January 2024
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Contract, Restitution, Tort
Counsel	Gabriel Law Corporation, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Disa Sim, Gabriel Peter, Jodi Siah, Manoj Nandwani, Sameer Melber, Torsten Cheong

Source: [2024] SGHC 18, High Court (General Division), decided 24 January 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Breach Contract — Formation Restitution — Duress Restitution — Undue influence Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit Contract — Contractual terms — Exclusion clauses Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation

Practice Areas

Contract Restitution Tort

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (8)

Gabriel Law Corporation Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Disa Sim Counsel Defendant Gabriel Peter Counsel Plaintiff Jodi Siah Counsel Defendant Manoj Nandwani Counsel Plaintiff Sameer Melber Counsel Plaintiff Torsten Cheong Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

INTL FCStone Pte Ltd Defendant Chandrawati Alie Defendant Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani Plaintiff Song Oi Lan Defendant

Case Significance

Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 18 was decided by See Kee Oon JAD in the General Division of the High Court on 24 January 2024, with judgment reserved, in Suit No 295 of 2020. The claim and counterclaim arose from a margin call made by the defendants on the plaintiff, Mr Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani, in March 2020 amid a rapidly falling silver futures market. The catchwords span Contract — Breach, Formation and Exclusion clauses, Restitution — Duress and Undue influence, and Tort — Misrepresentation covering fraud and deceit and negligent misrepresentation.

Mr Budhrani had been a client of UOB Bullion and Futures Limited since 20 November 2007, entering a Bullion Margin Trading Agreement dated 20 November 2007 and a Client Agreement dated August 2016 in respect of margin trading in silver futures. He was described as an accredited investor experienced in trading silver futures contracts. The first defendant counterclaimed against him. Gabriel Law Corporation acted for the plaintiff and Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP for the defendants.

[2024] SGHC 18 explained

RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 24 January 2024. It is categorised under Contract, Restitution, and Tort. 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 18 about?

RAJESH HARICHANDRA BUDHRANI v INTL FCSTONE PTE LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 18) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Contract — Formation”, “Restitution — Duress”, and “Restitution — Undue influence”, 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 18 consider?

The judgment refers to He also says that the defendants cannot rely on them as they are subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 18?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 18 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

Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani, an accredited investor experienced in silver futures trading, sued INTL FCStone Pte Ltd and two of its employees over a margin call made in March 2020 during a falling silver futures market, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, duress and undue influence, while the company counterclaimed for an outstanding deficit. The General Division of the High Court found that none of the plaintiff's claims were made out, holding there was no undue influence, duress, misrepresentation, breach of contract or breach of duty of care. The court further held that the defendants' counterclaim was well-founded and that they were entitled to judgment for US$198,222.60 plus interest, with costs to follow the event.

What gave rise to the dispute in Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 18?

In [2024] SGHC 18 the claim and counterclaim arose from a margin call the defendants made on Mr Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani in March 2020 during a rapidly falling silver futures market, involving issues of contract breach, duress, undue influence and misrepresentation.