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.
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)