DARSAN JITENDRA JHAVERI & 11 Ors v LAKSHMI ANIL SALGAOCAR suing as the Administratrix of the ESTATE OF ANIL VASSUDEVA SALGAOCAR (India Passport No.HXXXXXXX),deceased & Anor
[2024] SGHC(A) 19 High Court (Appellate Division) 25 June 2024 • AD/CA 88/2023 ( AD/SUM 5/2024,AD/SUM 46/2023 ) • 14 min read
5 cases cited
(3 SG, 2 foreign)
Cited by 1 case
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (19)
Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm Niru & Co LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Chin Ming Fwu Counsel Appellant Daryl Wong Counsel Appellant Davinder Singh Counsel Respondent Eva Teh Jing Hui Counsel Appellant Jaikanth Shankar Counsel Respondent Jaspreet Singh Sachdev Counsel Respondent Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan Counsel Respondent Lim Wei Lee Counsel Appellant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Appellant Ng Shu Wen Counsel Respondent Rajaram Muralli Raja Counsel Appellant Ritesh Vaman Counsel Respondent Tan Chee Meng Counsel Appellant Victoria Yu Counsel Appellant Wee Min Counsel Appellant
Parties (15)
Capital Glory Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Great Newton Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Millers Capital Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Newton Noble Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Nova Raffles Holdings Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Holdings Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Investments Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Properties Pte Ltd Appellant Singapore Star Shipping Pte Ltd Appellant Sino Ling Tao Resources Pte Ltd Appellant Sino Noble Asset Management Pte Ltd Appellant Winter Meadow Capital Inc Respondent Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Appellant Kwan Ka Yu Terence Third Party Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) Respondent
Case Significance
Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another [2024] SGHC(A) 19 was a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, sitting with Debbie Ong Siew Ling and See Kee Oon, on 25 June 2024. The grounds of decision arose in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023 (Summonses No 46 of 2023 and No 5 of 2024) and concerned an issue of civil procedure relating to amendments, set against the long-running litigation in Suit No 821 of 2015 between the Salgaocar estate and Winter Meadow Capital Inc as plaintiffs and Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri together with numerous Singapore Star and related corporate entities as defendants.
The appellants, comprising Mr Jhaveri and 11 corporate entities including Singapore Star Holdings Pte Ltd, Great Newton Properties Pte Ltd and Millers Capital Investments Pte Ltd, were represented by counsel from WongPartnership LLP and K&L Gates Straits Law LLC, including Tan Chee Meng and Narayanan Sreenivasan. The respondents, the Salgaocar estate administratrix and Winter Meadow Capital Inc, were represented by Davinder Singh and others from Davinder Singh Chambers LLC and Niru & Co LLC.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
25 June 2024
Case summary
Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another [2024] SGHC(A) 19
AD/CA No 88 of 2023 (Summonses No 46 of 2023 and No 5 of 2024)
AD/CA No 88 of 2023 (Summonses No 46 of 2023 and No 5 of 2024)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li):
Outcome: The AD rejected the appellants’ request for their application to adduce further evidence on appeal – which had already been decided by a two-member panel of the AD – to be reheard. The appellants’ subsequent summons for the application to be amended was accordingly dismissed.
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
• The relevant considerations regarding the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow or deny a request to rehear an application under s 41(8) of the SCJA to adduce further evidence on appeal are (a) whether there could be said to be any realistic basis for saying that the original decision could contain legal error or involve discretion exercised on a wrong principle or otherwise improperly and (b) whether there is any practical utility in conducting another hearing: at [21] to [22].
Background
1 Mr Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar (“Mr Salgaocar”) commenced a claim against Mr Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri (“Mr Darsan”) for breaches of trust. Subsequently, several Singapore companies as well as Mr Darsan’s wife and daughter were joined as defendants.
2 Mr Salgaocar passed away after the suit was commenced. The trial judge (“Judge”) found in favour of Mr Salgaocar’s estate. Dissatisfied with the Judge’s decision, Mr Darsan and the Singapore companies (collectively, the “Appellants”) filed an appeal (“AD 88”).
3 The Appellants filed AD/SUM 46/2023 (“SUM 46”) to admit fresh evidence in AD 88. SUM 46 was dismissed by a two-member panel (the “Coram”) of the Appellate Division of the High Court (“AD”) on 17 January 2024.
4 On 24 January 2024, the Appellants requested in writing for SUM 46 to be reheard by the full panel of the AD pursuant to s 41(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”). The Appellants then filed AD/SUM 5/2024 (“SUM 5”) on 2 February 2024, which was an application to amend SUM 46 to seek the court’s permission to adduce another piece of evidence should the AD accede to the request for the full panel to rehear SUM 46.
5 On 3 April 2024, the AD rejected the Appellants’ request for SUM 46 to be reheard by the full panel of the AD and, accordingly, dismissed SUM 5.
Decision
There was no basis for SUM 46 to be reheard by the full panel of the AD
6 Under s 41(8) of the SCJA, where an application for permission to adduce further evidence in an appeal before the AD is heard and decided by a single Judge or two Judges, any party may request the full panel of the AD hearing the appeal to rehear arguments in respect of the application: at [5].
7 It was not clear from the available legislative material whether Parliament had intended for further requirements to be complied with before a request for a rehearing of an application to adduce further evidence under s 41(8) of the SCJA would be granted: at [9] to [10].
8 The court must however retain the discretion to allow or deny such a request. This was borne out by the plain meaning of the word “request” and supported by analogy with s 29B of the SCJA, which deals with requests for further arguments before a notice of appeal is filed. On the contrary, granting such a request as of right would defeat the statutory objective of having such applications dealt with at first instance by a one or two-member panel so as to “make better use of judicial resources”: at [11] to [12].
9 In determining the considerations which are relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow or deny a request for a rehearing under s 41(8) of the SCJA, the AD held that case law in Malaysia and Canada was instructive: at [13].
10 Drawing from the principles set out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) in Stacey v Stacey [2009] NJ No. 247, the AD held that the relevant considerations were: (a) whether there could be said to be any realistic basis for saying that the original decision could contain legal error or involve discretion exercised on a wrong principle or otherwise improperly, and (b) whether there is any practical utility in conducting another hearing, bearing in mind, inter alia, the interests of all parties to the litigation and the time and expense involved in conducting a rehearing: at [20] to [21].
11 On the facts, the AD rejected the Appellants’ request. The Appellants were simply repeating the arguments which they had already made before the Coram. They also did not indicate that there was any realistic basis for saying that the Coram’s decision contained any legal error or that their discretion had been exercised improperly or incorrectly: at [23].
SUM 5 was dismissed
12 Given the Court’s decision to reject the Appellants’ request for SUM 46 to be reheard, SUM 5 necessarily fell away as SUM 46 would have already been finally decided by the AD on 17 January 2024. There could therefore be no amendment of SUM 46 to speak of: at [28].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
What did Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar [2024] SGHC(A) 19 decide?
It was a 2024 Appellate Division of the High Court decision, delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD on 25 June 2024, dealing with a civil procedure issue concerning amendments in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023, arising from the long-running Suit No 821 of 2015 between the Salgaocar estate and the Jhaveri parties.
Which judges decided [2024] SGHC(A) 19?
The Appellate Division decision in [2024] SGHC(A) 19 was delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, who sat together with Debbie Ong Siew Ling and See Kee Oon, on 25 June 2024 in Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023 (Summonses No 46 of 2023 and No 5 of 2024).
Statutes Cited
Courts of Judicature Act
s 97(4)
Foreign Exchange Management Act
s 37A(1)
Cases Cited (5)
SG (1)
[2023] SGHC 47
SLR (2)
[2018] 2 SLR 215 [2019] 1 SLR 499
UK (1)
[1954] 1 WLR 1489
MY (1)
[2022] 3 MLJ 641
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 ([2024] SGHC(A) 19)