DANIEL MAAG & Anor v LALIT KUMAR MODI
Outcome
Appeal allowedI thus allow the appeal in part and award Mr Modi costs here and below.
Source: [2024] SGHC 311, High Court (General Division), decided 5 December 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Dedar Singh Gill |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Conflict of Laws, Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed |
| Counsel | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, Providence Law Asia LLC, Abraham Vergis, Hamza Zafar Malik, Hari Veluri, Suang Wijaya, Timothy Hew Zhao Yi |
Source: [2024] SGHC 311, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
Maag, Daniel and another v Lalit Kumar Modi [2024] SGHC 311 is a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court delivered on 5 December 2024 by Dedar Singh Gill J in Originating Claim No 660 of 2023 (Registrar's Appeal No 77 of 2024). The defendant, Mr Lalit Kumar Modi (whom the claimants aver is an Indian national), appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision allowing the claimants, Daniel Maag and Gurpreet Gill Maag, to amend their statement of claim. It was common ground that Mr Modi ran a page on the platform "X" with 3.8 million followers and an Instagram page with 5.2 million followers at the material time. The judgment addresses tort of defamation and malicious falsehood, conflict of laws and jurisdiction, service out of jurisdiction, and amendment of pleadings.
[2024] SGHC 311 explained
DANIEL MAAG & Anor v LALIT KUMAR MODI ([2024] SGHC 311) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 5 December 2024. It is categorised under Tort, Conflict of Laws, and 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 [2024] SGHC 311 about?
DANIEL MAAG & Anor v LALIT KUMAR MODI ([2024] SGHC 311) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Malicious Falsehood”, “Conflict of Laws — Jurisdiction”, “Tort — Defamation — Publication”, and “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 311 consider?
The judgment refers to Defamation Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), and UK Defamation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Daniel Maag and Gurpreet Gill Maag, who are based in Singapore, sued Lalit Kumar Modi in the General Division of the High Court over a social media post (the 'Litigation Post') they alleged contained malicious falsehoods and defamatory material; Mr Modi appealed against an assistant registrar's decision allowing the Maags to amend their statement of claim. The appeal engaged issues of defamation and malicious falsehood, publication, service out of jurisdiction, conflict of laws jurisdiction, and the principles for amending pleadings. Dedar Singh Gill J allowed the appeal in part, permitting certain amendments while disallowing others, and awarded the defendant costs here and below.
What was Maag, Daniel v Lalit Kumar Modi [2024] SGHC 311 about?
In [2024] SGHC 311, Dedar Singh Gill J heard Lalit Kumar Modi's appeal against an Assistant Registrar's decision allowing claimants Daniel Maag and Gurpreet Gill Maag to amend their statement of claim, in a dispute involving defamation, malicious falsehood, jurisdiction and service out of jurisdiction.
What social media following did the defendant have in Maag v Lalit Kumar Modi ([2024] SGHC 311)?
Per [2024] SGHC 311, it was common ground that the defendant, Mr Lalit Kumar Modi, ran a page on the platform "X" with 3.8 million followers and an Instagram page with 5.2 million followers at the material time, relevant to the claims of defamation and malicious falsehood.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (31)
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 ([2024] SGHC 311)