Golden Mango Pte. Ltd. v Sudip Bijay Dutta & Anor
Outcome
Application dismissed“I dismissed the application without calling on GMPL.”
Source: [2026] SGMC 94, Magistrate Court, decided 5 August 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Magistrate Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Evans Ng |
| Charges / claim | Landlord and Tenant, Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | August Law Corporation, Jay Law Corporation, K Jayakumar Naidu, Tan Wen Cheng Adrian |
Source: [2026] SGMC 94, Magistrate Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Golden Mango Pte. Ltd. v Sudip Bijay Dutta and another [2026] SGMC 94 is a Magistrate's Court decision of District Judge Evans Ng, with grounds delivered on 5 August 2026. The tenant, Golden Mango Pte. Ltd., sought refund of a $39,000 security deposit under a tenancy agreement dated 14 July 2022, plus $6,238 for gardening, curtain dry cleaning and professional cleaning. The landlords counterclaimed for breach of clauses 2(h) and 2(k) and for double rent of $24,700. The issues were whether the premises were yielded up on 4 or 23 August 2023, whether the $6,238 was recoverable, whether clause 2(k) was breached, and whether rectification costs of $4,065 were proved. The court allowed the deposit refund, awarded the landlords nominal damages of $50, ordered payment of $38,950 with interest at 5.33% per annum, and dismissed the other claims. It also dismissed the landlords' application for permission to appeal.
[2026] SGMC 94 explained
Golden Mango Pte. Ltd. v Sudip Bijay Dutta & Anor ([2026] SGMC 94) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 5 August 2026. It is categorised under Landlord and Tenant 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 [2026] SGMC 94 about?
Golden Mango Pte. Ltd. v Sudip Bijay Dutta & Anor ([2026] SGMC 94) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Landlord and Tenant — Covenants”, “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave”, and “Landlord and Tenant — Rent and service charges”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 94 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The Magistrate's Court dealt with a tenancy dispute between a corporate tenant, Golden Mango Pte. Ltd., and its landlords, Sudip Bijay Dutta and Aarti Sudip Dutta, over a tenancy agreement dated 14 July 2022 and a S$39,000 security deposit. The court ordered the landlords to refund the deposit, less nominal damages of $50 for defects left on the premises, so that $38,950 was payable with interest at 5.33% per annum. The tenant's $6,238 claim and the landlords' double rent counterclaim of $24,700 were dismissed, and permission to appeal was refused.
What was Golden Mango Pte. Ltd. v Sudip Bijay Dutta about ([2026] SGMC 94)?
It was a tenancy dispute in the Magistrate's Court over a S$39,000 security deposit. The tenant sought its refund and $6,238 in other costs, while the landlords counterclaimed for rectification costs and double rent of $24,700 after the tenancy ended on 4 August 2023.
What did the court order in [2026] SGMC 94?
The court allowed the deposit refund and awarded the landlords nominal damages of $50 for defects, set off against it. The landlords were to refund $38,950 with interest at 5.33% per annum. The $6,238 claim and double rent counterclaim were dismissed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGMC 94)