JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor v DEEPAK MISHRA & 3 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 91 consider?

The judgment refers to Insolvency Act, Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC 91 High Court (General Division) 30 April 2026 HC/OC 28/2025 ( HC/SUM 631/2026,HC/SUM 3300/2025 ) 20 min read

9 cases cited (6 SG, 3 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	30 April 2026
Judge	Aidan Xu
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Clasis LLC, Ee Jia Min, Izzat Rashad Bin Rosazizi, Koh Junxiang, Ng Pi Wei, Prakash Pillai, Tan Yen Jee, Tay Zhuo Yan Isaac, Yeo Alexander Lawrence Han Tiong, Yeoh Tze Ning

Source: [2026] SGHC 91, High Court (General Division), decided 30 April 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Functus officio Civil Procedure — Amendments — Orders — Election of remedies

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Aidan Xu Delivered

Counsel (11)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Clasis LLC Firm Ee Jia Min Counsel Applicant Izzat Rashad Bin Rosazizi Counsel Applicant Koh Junxiang Counsel Defendant Ng Pi Wei Counsel Defendant Prakash Pillai Counsel Defendant Tan Yen Jee Counsel Applicant Tay Zhuo Yan Isaac Counsel Defendant Yeo Alexander Lawrence Han Tiong Counsel Applicant Yeoh Tze Ning Counsel Applicant

Parties (6)

Intentio Management Company Limited Defendant Metro Capital Limited Defendant Deepak Mishra Defendant Hamish Alexander Christie Applicant Jason Aleksander Kardachi Applicant Nimisha Pandey Defendant

Case Significance

Kardachi, Jason Aleksander (as private trustee in bankruptcy of Rajesh Bothra) and another v Deepak Mishra and others [2026] SGHC 91, decided on 30 April 2026 by Justice Aidan Xu of the High Court General Division (Originating Claim No 28 of 2025), addressed procedural questions of functus officio and election of remedies that Justice Xu noted are of interest to practitioners. The claimants — private trustees in bankruptcy of Rajesh Bothra, Jason Aleksander Kardachi and Hamish Alexander Christie — applied in SUM 631 of 2026 for leave to amend their earlier SUM 3300 of 2025, which had sought additional orders clarifying the summary judgment order in HC/ORC 3801/2025. In the prior decision ([2026] SGHC 27), Justice Xu had declined the Transfer Prayer in SUM 3300 because it was insufficiently clear that the claimants were exercising their right of election. Justice Xu granted the amended prayers in SUM 631 in part, resolving how a court may act after its earlier order on the same application and how a party's election of remedies must be clearly expressed. Defendants included Deepak Mishra, Nimisha Pandey, Intentio Management Company Limited, and Metro Capital Limited; the claimants were represented by Tan Yen Jee, Ee Jia Min, and others from Allen & Gledhill LLP, and the defendants by Prakash Pillai, Koh Junxiang, and others from Clasis LLC.

[2026] SGHC 91 explained

JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor v DEEPAK MISHRA & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC 91) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 April 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. 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 91 about?

JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor v DEEPAK MISHRA & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC 91) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Functus officio” and “Civil Procedure — Amendments — Orders — Election of remedies”, 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 91 consider?

The judgment refers to Insolvency Act, Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 91 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 27. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

The private trustees in bankruptcy of Rajesh Bothra applied to amend an earlier summons (SUM 3300) seeking additional orders to clarify a summary judgment declaring share transfers void under ss 327 and/or 328 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The key issue was whether the trustees had sufficiently exercised their right of election to obtain a transfer of the shares. The court granted the amended prayers in part, allowing the election in favour of the share transfer but declining to grant a declaration on the proprietary nature of the IRDA remedy.

What procedural issue did the High Court resolve in Kardachi v Deepak Mishra [2026] SGHC 91?

Justice Aidan Xu resolved questions of functus officio and election of remedies arising from an application by the private trustees of Rajesh Bothra's bankruptcy estate to amend an earlier summons (SUM 3300/2025) seeking to clarify a summary judgment order. The court partly granted the amended prayers in SUM 631 of 2026, having previously declined the Transfer Prayer for insufficient clarity of election.

Why had the Transfer Prayer in Kardachi v Deepak Mishra been refused in the earlier [2026] SGHC 27 decision ([2026] SGHC 91)?

In the earlier decision [2026] SGHC 27, Justice Aidan Xu declined the Transfer Prayer sought by the bankruptcy trustees of Rajesh Bothra because it was not sufficiently clear that the claimants were actually exercising their right of election of remedies. The follow-on application in SUM 631 of 2026 was brought to address that deficiency.