HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR
Outcome
Claim dismissedI dismiss the Claim herein in its entirety and move on the Counterclaim.
Source: [2026] SGDC 33, District Court, decided 21 January 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Georgina Lum |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Landlord and Tenant |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed |
| Counsel | Mahmood Gaznavi Chambers LLC, Meritus Law LLC, Netto & Magin LLC, Hewage Ushan Saminda Premaratne, Luke Netto, Rezza Gaznavi |
Source: [2026] SGDC 33, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
[2026] SGDC 33 is a District Court decision dated 21 January 2026 concerning Landlord and Tenant and Tort, specifically addressing conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, and breach of contract. The judgment was delivered by Georgina Lum. The case was brought by HVS Properties Private Limited (plaintiff) against Vinod Eashwar (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Netto & Magin LLC and Meritus Law LLC. The judgment cites 10 cases (9 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Protection from Harassment Act.
[2026] SGDC 33 explained
HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR ([2026] SGDC 33) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 21 January 2026. It is categorised under Tort and Landlord and Tenant. 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 [2026] SGDC 33 about?
HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR ([2026] SGDC 33) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conspiracy”, “Tort — Inducement of breach of contract”, “Landlord and Tenant — Breach of contract”, and “Landlord and Tenant — Covenant for quiet enjoyment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 33 consider?
The judgment refers to Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 33 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 80. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
A family company sued a tenant for breach of a tenancy agreement and unpaid rent for a Tanjong Rhu property, while the tenant counterclaimed for conspiracy, breach of quiet enjoyment, and inducement of breach of contract involving the company's directors and lawyer. The court dismissed both the claim and counterclaim, finding the company failed to prove its entitlement to the claimed rental and the tenant failed to establish the alleged conspiracy or interference.
What was decided in [2026] SGDC 33?
[2026] SGDC 33 (HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR) is a District Court decision from 21 January 2026 addressing Landlord and Tenant and Tort, specifically conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, and breach of contract. The judgment was delivered by Georgina Lum.
Who were the parties in HVS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED v VINOD EASHWAR ([2026] SGDC 33)?
The plaintiff in [2026] SGDC 33 was HVS Properties Private Limited, and the defendant was Vinod Eashwar. Legal representation included Mahmood Gaznavi Chambers LLC and Meritus Law LLC. The case was decided on 21 January 2026 in the District Court.
Which judge decided [2026] SGDC 33?
[2026] SGDC 33 was delivered by Georgina Lum in the District Court on 21 January 2026. The case concerned Landlord and Tenant and Tort.
What cases and statutes does [2026] SGDC 33 cite?
[2026] SGDC 33 cites 10 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Protection from Harassment Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
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 ([2026] SGDC 33)