SAHA RAM KRISHNA & 2 Ors v TAN TAI JOUM

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 9 consider?

The judgment refers to BCA issued to the defendant a certificate of statutory completion certifying that the additions and alterations had been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Control Act (Cap 29), Civil Law Act (Cap 43), Planning Act (Cap 232), and Property under the Planning Act (Cap 232). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 9 High Court (General Division) 23 January 2024 • HC/S 774/2020 • 58 min read

7 cases cited (6 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Contract - Breach Contract - Discharge - Breach Contract - Remedies - Damages Contract - Remedies - Mitigation of damage Contract - Contractual terms - Implied terms

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Vinodh Coomaraswamy Delivered

Counsel (6)

Alpha Law LLC Firm Foo & Quek LLC Firm Chung Jun Hui Joel Counsel Defendant Ng Lip Chih Counsel Defendant William Ong Meng Hwa Counsel Plaintiff Yap Bock Heng Christopher Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (4)

J M Business World Pte Ltd Plaintiff Jay Mondal Plaintiff Saha Ram Krishna Plaintiff Tan Tai Joum Defendant

Case Significance

Saha Ram Krishna and others v Tan Tai Joum (acting as personal representative of the estate of Tan Hee Liang, deceased) [2024] SGHC 9 was decided by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J in the General Division of the High Court on 23 January 2024, in Suit No 774 of 2020. The action was brought by three tenants against their landlord, with each side alleging breach of the tenancy agreements and seeking substantial damages against the other. The catchwords cover Contract — Breach, Discharge by breach, Implied terms, and Remedies including Damages and Mitigation of damage.

The plaintiffs were the tenants. The third plaintiff was a company incorporated in Singapore in 2017 to carry on business as a restaurant. The first plaintiff was one of the third plaintiff's directors from incorporation until he resigned in January 2019, and the second plaintiff had been the majority shareholder and a director of the third plaintiff from incorporation until trial. Alpha Law LLC acted for the plaintiffs and Foo & Quek LLC for the defendant.

[2024] SGHC 9 explained

SAHA RAM KRISHNA & 2 Ors v TAN TAI JOUM ([2024] SGHC 9) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 23 January 2024. It is categorised under Contract. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 9 about?

SAHA RAM KRISHNA & 2 Ors v TAN TAI JOUM ([2024] SGHC 9) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Contract - Breach”, “Contract - Discharge - Breach”, “Contract - Remedies - Damages”, and “Contract - Remedies - Mitigation of damage”, 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 9 consider?

The judgment refers to BCA issued to the defendant a certificate of statutory completion certifying that the additions and alterations had been completed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Control Act (Cap 29), Civil Law Act (Cap 43), Planning Act (Cap 232), and Property under the Planning Act (Cap 232). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 9?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 9 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Three tenants brought an action against their landlord (sued through the personal representative of his deceased estate) over two tenancy agreements relating to restaurant premises, each side alleging the other was in breach and claiming substantial damages. The General Division of the High Court considered issues of breach, implied terms, discharge by breach, damages and mitigation across both tenancy agreements. The court found the landlord had succeeded on about half of his counterclaim, recovering substantial damages for breach of the first tenancy agreement while being found in repudiatory breach of the second, and ordered the tenants to pay the landlord's costs fixed at S$150,000 including disbursements.

What was the dispute in Saha Ram Krishna v Tan Tai Joum [2024] SGHC 9?

In [2024] SGHC 9 three tenants sued their landlord, with each side alleging breach of the tenancy agreements and claiming substantial damages. The third plaintiff was a company incorporated in Singapore in 2017 to operate a restaurant.

Who decided [2024] SGHC 9 and on what date?

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J decided Saha Ram Krishna and others v Tan Tai Joum [2024] SGHC 9 in the General Division of the High Court on 23 January 2024, in Suit No 774 of 2020, a landlord and tenant contract dispute.