Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors
Outcome
Appeal dismissedwe therefore dismissed the appeal.
Source: [2026] SGHCR 10, High Court Registrar, decided 6 April 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Rui Yuan |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
| Counsel | Dauntless Law Chambers LLC, Mahmood Gaznavi Chambers LLC, Leong Yu Chong Aaron, Mahmood Gaznavi s/o Bashir Muhammad, Rezza Gaznavi, Sarah Khan Shu Hui, Suresh Divyanathan |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 10, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
In Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors [2026] SGHCR 10, decided on 6 April 2026, Assistant Registrar Chua Rui Yuan of the High Court set aside an order for substituted service that had been obtained without leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, where the first respondent Sreerangam Muruthi was outside Singapore at the time of service. Citing 94 authorities (48 Singapore, 46 foreign) and 8 statutes including the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, AR Chua examined whether service of originating process on a defendant outside Singapore required prior permission to serve out of jurisdiction under s 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and whether material non-disclosure vitiated the substituted-service order.
[2026] SGHCR 10 explained
Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHCR 10) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 6 April 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws. 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] SGHCR 10 about?
Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHCR 10) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Material non-disclosure — Setting aside”, “Civil Procedure — Service — Substituted service — Setting aside —Defendant outside Singapore at the time of service — Whether substituted service without permission to serve out of the jurisdiction should be set aside”, and “Conflict of Laws — Jurisdiction — Defendant outside Singapore at the time of service — Whether service out of the jurisdiction necessary to establish court’s jurisdiction over defendant — Section 16(1)(a) Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 10 consider?
The judgment refers to Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3), Companies Act (Cap 50), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Income Tax Act (Cap 134), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHCR 10 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHCR 26. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Mr Beranek applied for substituted service on Mr Muruthi, a respondent located outside Singapore, without obtaining leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under s 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Mr Muruthi applied to set aside the substituted service order on the grounds that out-of-jurisdiction service permission was required and that Mr Beranek had materially failed to disclose Mr Muruthi's overseas location when seeking the order. The Assistant Registrar set aside the service order and awarded indemnity costs of S$9,500 against Mr Beranek, finding the non-disclosure was conscious and deliberate.
What happens if substituted service is ordered against a defendant who was outside Singapore without first obtaining leave to serve out of jurisdiction ([2026] SGHCR 10)?
In Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi [2026] SGHCR 10, AR Chua Rui Yuan held that service of originating process is the primary basis for the court's jurisdiction; a substituted-service order obtained without leave to serve out of jurisdiction where the defendant was outside Singapore must be set aside, including for material non-disclosure.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (94)
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] SGHCR 10)