Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar (India Passport No.HXXXXXXX),deceased

In Suit No 821 of 2015, the estate of the late Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar, represented by its administratrix Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar, sued Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri for breach of an oral trust made in December 2003 over special purpose vehicles (SPVs) used in Mr Salgaocar's iron ore business. On 28 February 2023 the trial judge found the trust existed and that Mr Jhaveri had breached it, including by misappropriating SPV monies and disposing of SPV properties (Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri [2023] SGHC 47). The judgment defined the trust assets as the "equity in the BVI SPVs and the Singapore SPVs", ordered their delivery up, and granted a prohibitory injunction against disposing of them. The extracted judgment, JUD 98, instead described the trust assets as the shares in the SPVs. The decision was largely upheld on appeal on 17 April 2024.

Between the liability judgment and 16 May 2023, while negotiating a stay through his solicitors, Mr Jhaveri sold ten properties owned by SPVs for a total of $23,169,300, and on 14 March 2024 he made the $10.5m Payments to himself, described as director's dues. In HC/SUM 3063/2024, the High Court found him in contempt for breaching the injunction and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment. He appealed in Civil Appeal No 19 of 2025.

1. Whether the judge erred in relying on the $10.5m Payments when they were said to fall outside the O 52 statement.
2. Whether the injunction, which referred to shares in the SPVs, restrained disposal of the SPVs' underlying assets.
3. Whether five months' imprisonment was an appropriate sentence.

The first point fell away at the hearing when his counsel confirmed that the $10.5m Payments came from the property sale proceeds. The O 52 statement already complained that those proceeds had been converted and dissipated, so there was no breach of O 52 r 5(3) of the Rules of Court.

On interpretation, the court held that the starting point is the order's terms, from which the court discerns the purpose that guides its effect; only ambiguity in that purpose is resolved for the person bound. Following Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 246, this applies to civil as well as criminal contempt. The parties could not alter the liability judgment's meaning by rewording the extracted order. "Equity" there was meant to cover more than shares, and the purpose was to preserve the value of what was to be returned, so that the estate would not receive companies drained of value. Shares themselves carry rights in a company's net assets. Mr Jhaveri's own affidavit seeking a stay showed he understood the order protected the SPVs' asset values, and his narrow reading was a convenient afterthought. Selling the properties and paying himself reduced the SPVs' net asset value and breached the injunction.

On sentence, the claim that he had merely tried to exploit a loophole was untenable. He knowingly breached the order on ten separate occasions and benefited directly, causing grave harm. Five months was warranted and, if anything, on the low side.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 20 January 2026, upholding the findings of contempt and the sentence of five months' imprisonment, and ordered Mr Jhaveri to pay costs fixed at $50,000 (all-in).