LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

SK LATERAL RUBBER & PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES (SUZHOU) CO., LTD v LATERAL SOLUTIONS PTE LTD

by SKL for the manufacture of parts. Lateral claims damages for wrongful detention or conversion of the equipment. Fourthly, Lateral says that SKL wrongfully ceased to supply parts under the Agreement, which it alleges by discussion and conduct was or became a long term supply agreement, and cla

Sushant Shukla· ·19 min read
Singapore

Teras Offshore Pte Ltd v Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC

Defendant JUDGMENT [Contract] – [Breach] – [Non-payment] [Contract] – [Contractual terms] – [Scope of work] Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:40 hrs) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 THE LNG PROJECTS AND TH

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

MOHAMED SHIYAM v TUFF OFFSHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES PTE LTD

the Assistant Registrar’s decision to grant unconditional leave to defend, but ordered that some minor additional parts of the Defence be struck out. 19 The Amended Defence, amended in accordance with these decisions, was filed on 27 November 2020. 20 On 9 December 2020, the defendant applied fo

Sushant Shukla· ·19 min read
Singapore

CJM & 6 Ors v CJT

iffs And (1) CJT … Defendant JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure] — [Costs] Version No 1: 27 Aug 2021 (17:44 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 PRE-TRANSFER COSTS...................................................

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

CLQ v CLR

by the Government, a letter from a competent Governmental authority authorizing the Government to hold shares in that company, is required to be submitted along with company registration documentation. Furthermore, a letter from a competent Governmental authority authorizing the appointment of

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

PT ADIDAYA ENERGY MANDIRI v MS FIRST CAPITAL INSURANCE LIMITED

covered subject to additional terms if required to be agreed”. The Insured Value was US$4,700,000 and the General Conditions included a waiver of rights of subjugation against any subsidiary, affiliated or interrelated company of the Assured as well as a deferred premium clause which referred to

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

BACHMEER CAPITAL LIMITED v ONG CHIH CHING & 7 Ors

that the witness in California could give relevant evidence, that the plaintiffs had no control over the witness and could only rely on his willingness to help them, and that the plaintiffs had made the necessary attempts to secure the witnesses presence in Singapore for the purpose of the trial

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

CKG v CKH

] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Remission] Version No 2: 23 Jul 2021 (14:26 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 COURT’S APPROACH TO AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD ................

Sushant Shukla· ·19 min read
Singapore

CES v International Air Transport Association

the learned Arbitrator (“the Tribunal”) held that he has jurisdiction to hear the claim.3 Being dissatisfied, by an Originating Summons filed on 17 June 2019, CES applied to the Singapore High Court, pursuant to s 10 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) read with A

Sushant Shukla· ·18 min read
Singapore

HAI JIAO 1306 LIMITED v YAW CHEE SIEW

SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS POST TERMINATION OF EACH OF THE BBCS.....................................................................................................68 CLAIM 1: BREACHES OF THE BEST ENDEAVOURS OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LETTERS OF SUPPORT ......................

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

THE STAR ENTERTAINMENT QLD LIMITED v WONG YEW CHOY

THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION AND THE STRIKE- OUT APPLICATION............................................................................................7 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................27 Version No 1: 27 Oct 2

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

CMJ & Anor v CML & Anor

Tribunal”) dismissed all of CMJ’s claims but upheld CML’s counterclaim to a limited extent and awarded damages in respect of those breaches. 6 CMJ seek to set aside the Award on the ground that there were breaches of natural justice in that they were not given a fair opportunity to present their

Sushant Shukla· ·19 min read
Singapore

CMC v CMD

rea Co, Ltd … Defendant JUDGMENT [Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside] Version No 1: 27 May 2022 (14:00 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND ...............

Sushant Shukla· ·23 min read
Singapore

GOKUL PATNAIK v NINE RIVERS CAPITAL LIMITED

by the Promoter(s) to offer the same to the Third Party purchaser, provided that the securities of the Promoter(s) that are dragged along should be sold to any Third Party purchaser on the same terms and conditions as those of the Investor (“Drag Along Right”). 4 Gokul’s 1st Affidavit at pp 135

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

ROLL SG PTE. LTD. v CONG TY CO PHAN VAN TAI LIEN HIEP HUY HOANG

… Defendant JUDGMENT [Contract — Breach — Rental agreement] [Contract — Remedies — Damages] Version No 1: 25 Apr 2023 (14:46 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .................................

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

BNP PARIBAS SA v JACOB AGAM & Anor

on the facts, that factors (a) and (b) indicated some connection of the action with Singapore in a procedural or administrative sense but were not “substantial” and factors (c) to (e) were, at best, peripheral to the action (at [16]). Rather, the Court in Teras held that what was critical was tha

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

CPIT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v QILIN WORLD CAPITAL LIMITED & Anor

held on trust by Qilin as the proceeds of the sale of the Pledged Shares (at [300(a)]). I also ordered an account be taken of the profits made by Qilin in respect of that sum held on trust (at [300(b)]). Background 4 Pursuant to the terms of a consent order dated 12 February 2016 and a solicitor

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

CUG & 3 Ors v CUH

SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND.................................3 THE PARTIES...................................................................................................3 THE JV PROJECT .............................................................................................4 ENGAGEMEN

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

TWARIT CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & Anor v GPE (INDIA) LTD & 2 Ors

by the relevant defendant, for a total price in the three SPAs of INR200,00,00,000.10 The plaintiffs were to purchase the shares in 14 tranches on various dates from 30 September 2015 to 30 June 2018.11 10 Secondly, a so-called letter agreement (“the First Letter Agreement”) was entered into betw

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

BXS v BXT

JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure] — [Costs] Version No 1: 27 Oct 2020 (22:41 hrs) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

JUDAH VALUE ACTIVIST FUND v OPEN FAITH INVESTMENT LIMITED

SUMMARY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE............................................................65 SUMMARY OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE ........................................................68 Remoteness...............................................................................................69 Causati

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

LAO HOLDINGS N.V. v THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

60% of the shares in PV, while GOL and ST held 20% each. After the monopoly rights were stripped, GOL then ordered PV to return a land concession in December 2008, and then terminated the PV PDA in April 2010. This related to Paksong Vegas. (b) In March 2011, GOL ordered Paksan Club to be shut

Sushant Shukla· ·18 min read
Singapore

CPU & 2 Ors v CPX

SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS’ CASE AS TO RELEVANT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................6 THE PRECEDING TRANSACTIONS.....................................................................6 THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

DYSTAR GLOBAL HOLDINGS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED & 4 Ors

done at Kiri’s request and, as this court held in the Judgment, on the condition that Kiri agreed (as it had done) to bear the costs of the audit. By its decision communicated to the parties on 19 July 2018, this court ordered statutory interest of 5.33% to run on the €1.7 million and S$443,813 f

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read