DEEPAK MISHRA & Anor v RASHMI BOTHRA
Outcome
Appeal dismissedThe appeal was therefore dismissed for the reasons stated above.
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 17, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 5 June 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 1–7 June 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Kannan Ramesh, See Kee Oon, Woo Bih Li |
| Charges / claim | Contract |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 17, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Case Significance
Deepak Mishra and another v Rashmi Bothra [2026] SGHC(A) 17, decided on 5 June 2026 by Woo Bih Li JAD, Kannan Ramesh JAD and See Kee Oon JAD, who delivered the grounds, in Civil Appeal No 86 of 2025, concerned a Running Account under which the appellants, Deepak Mishra and Nimisha Pandey, had claimed US$54,752,064 from the respondent, Rashmi Bothra, in the underlying HC/OC 593/2023, while Rashmi Bothra counterclaimed for US$137,112,023. After Deepak gave oral testimony, the appellants withdrew their claims on the basis that the Running Account was unenforceable for illegality, save for one claim pleaded in the alternative, and the trial judge found 15 transactions under the Running Account to be illegal. The appeal, which centres on contractual illegality and public policy, cites 9 authorities — 7 Singapore, 2 foreign — and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
[2026] SGHC(A) 17 explained
DEEPAK MISHRA & Anor v RASHMI BOTHRA ([2026] SGHC(A) 17) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 5 June 2026. It is categorised under Contract. 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] SGHC(A) 17 about?
DEEPAK MISHRA & Anor v RASHMI BOTHRA ([2026] SGHC(A) 17) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Illegality and public policy”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 17 consider?
The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 17 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 170. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
What sums were in dispute in Deepak Mishra and another v Rashmi Bothra [2026] SGHC(A) 17?
In [2026] SGHC(A) 17, appellants Deepak Mishra and Nimisha Pandey had claimed US$54,752,064 from Rashmi Bothra under a Running Account, while Bothra counterclaimed for US$137,112,023; the trial judge found 15 transactions under the Running Account to be illegal.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(A) 17)