JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor v DEEPAK MISHRA & 3 Ors
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (11)
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.
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?
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.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 91)