PRADEEPTO KUMAR BISWAS v SABYASACHI MUKHERJEE & Anor
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another [2024] SGHC(A) 3 was an application in the Appellate Division of the High Court (Originating Application No 54 of 2023) decided by See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J, with judgment reserved on 27 December 2023 and delivered on 31 January 2024 by Audrey Lim J on behalf of the court. The applicant, Mr Pradeepto Kumar Biswas, sought an extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal against the decision of Goh Yihan J in HC/SUM 268/2023. The court noted that while the four factors applicable to an extension of time were well-settled and not in dispute, the considerations relating to the third factor (the prospect of success) merited clarification in the context of an application for extension of time to file an application for permission to appeal. Procedurally, on 1 December 2022 the Assistant Registrar had adjudged the applicant a bankrupt in HC/B 2425/2021.
Summary
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas applied to the Appellate Division of the High Court for an extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal against a decision of Goh Yihan J in HC/SUM 268/2023, which concerned bankruptcy proceedings and an attempt to adduce fresh evidence. The court addressed the four settled factors governing extensions of time, clarifying the considerations relevant to the third factor, the prospect of success, in the context of an application for permission to appeal. The court awarded costs against the applicant on an indemnity basis, fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements, having found his conduct to warrant such an order.
What did Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee [2024] SGHC(A) 3 address?
It addressed an application by Pradeepto Kumar Biswas for an extension of time to file for permission to appeal against Goh Yihan J's decision in HC/SUM 268/2023, with the Appellate Division clarifying how the prospect-of-success factor applies in that context.
Which legal factor did the court clarify in [2024] SGHC(A) 3?
See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J held that, although the four extension-of-time factors were well-settled, the third factor, the prospect of success, merited clarification when the extension sought is to file an application for permission to appeal.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (20)
Cited By (1)
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) 3)