AKRO GROUP DMCC v DISCOVERY DRILLING PTE. LTD.

"This case has had a rather extraordinary history." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 1

Case Information

• Citation: [2019] SGHC(I) 08 (also reflected in the extraction as [2019] SGHC(I) 08 / [2019] SGHCI 8) (Para 0)
• Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (Para 0)
• Date of hearing: 8 April 2019 (Para 0)
• Date of judgment: 31 May 2019 (Para 0)
• Coram: Patricia Bergin IJ (Para 0)
• Case number: Suit No 1 of 2017 (Para 0)
• Counsel for the defendant and plaintiff in counterclaim: Visheshwar Shrivastav (V Shrivastav & Co) (Registered Foreign Lawyer) (Para 0)
• Representation status of the plaintiff and the defendants in counterclaim: not represented and did not appear (Para 0)
• Area of law: Contract — Breach; Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit; Equity — Fiduciary relationships — Breach of fiduciary duties (Para 0)
• Judgment length: not answerable from the extraction (not stated in the provided material)

Summary

AKRO Group DMCC commenced proceedings against Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd seeking unpaid project management fees and expenses, but the litigation developed into a much broader dispute about delay, fabricated supplier documents, secret profits, fraud, conspiracy, and fiduciary breach in relation to the management of a rig project. The court described the matter as “rather extraordinary,” and the extraction shows that the dispute became procedurally and evidentially complex because DDPL alleged that AKRO and others created false invoices and quotes throughout the contractual period. (Para 1, Para 43)

The court first dealt with the offshore-case application because the Registered Foreign Lawyer could only appear if the matter was an offshore case. It held that the action had no substantial connection with Singapore, emphasizing that the contract was negotiated, entered into, and performed elsewhere, and that the alleged wrongdoing also occurred elsewhere. The court therefore treated the matter as an offshore case under the relevant procedural framework. (Para 48, Para 52, Para 53)

On the merits, the court found that AKRO and the other Cross-Defendants created fabricated or falsified documents to make their own quotes appear preferable and to harm DDPL. It held that AKRO owed DDPL fiduciary duties in the management of the project, that those duties were breached, and that the representations in the falsified documents were intentionally made for the purpose of benefiting the wrongdoers. The court assessed substantial damages, refused punitive damages, and ordered costs against the Cross-Defendants. (Para 150, Para 151, Para 156, Para 160, Para 163, Para 169, Para 174, Para 179)

How did the court decide the offshore-case application and why did it matter?

The offshore-case issue mattered because DDPL’s Registered Foreign Lawyer could appear only if the proceedings qualified as an offshore case. The court noted that the application was made under the Legal Profession Act and the Legal Profession (Representation in Singapore International Commercial Court) Rules 2014, and that the timing of the application was governed by the Rules of Court. The court also recorded that the application should ordinarily have been made within 28 days of the close of pleadings, although the extraction does not provide any dispute about extension beyond that procedural point. (Para 40, Para 48)

"As referred to above, DDPL made application for the offshore decision because the RFL was only entitled to appear for it in the proceedings if it is an ‘offshore case’: s 36O of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed); Rule 3(2) of Legal Profession (Representation in Singapore International Commercial Court) Rules 2014 (Cap 161, S 851)." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 48

The court’s reasoning focused on the geographical and substantive connections of the dispute. It observed that the contract was negotiated, entered into, and performed outside Singapore, and that the subject matter of the dispute related to conduct occurring elsewhere. Those matters were “persuasive” in concluding that the action had no substantial connection to Singapore. The extraction also records the court’s statement of the governing rule that if Singapore law is not the applicable law and the subject matter is not regulated or otherwise subject to Singapore law, the action is an offshore case. (Para 52, Para 53, Para 48)

"The facts that the Contract was negotiated, entered into and performed elsewhere than Singapore and that the subject matter of the dispute relates to conduct that occurred elsewhere than in Singapore were persuasive matters in reaching the conclusion that the action has no substantial connection to Singapore." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 53

This ruling was practically important because it enabled the foreign lawyer to appear for DDPL and allowed the court to proceed with the merits of the counterclaim in the posture contemplated by the SICC framework. The extraction does not indicate any contest on the point after the court’s conclusion, but it does show that the offshore-case determination was a threshold issue before the substantive fraud and fiduciary claims were addressed. (Para 48, Para 52, Para 53, Para 59)

What were the contractual and factual foundations of the dispute between AKRO and DDPL?

The dispute began with negotiations in Houston in October 2015 and the execution of the contract in Delhi on 4 November 2015. Under that contract, AKRO agreed to provide SPM services for DDPL’s project. The extraction identifies the contract as the operative agreement and places the negotiations and execution outside Singapore, which later became relevant both to the offshore-case analysis and to the court’s assessment of the parties’ conduct. (Para 12, Para 13, Para 53)

"In October 2015 AKRO and DDPL conducted negotiations in Houston, Texas in respect of AKRO providing the SPM Services for the Project." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 12

"On 4 November 2015 AKRO and DDPL executed an agreement in Delhi, India pursuant to which AKRO agreed to provide the SPM Services to DDPL (‘the Contract’)." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 13

AKRO’s original claim was for unpaid project management fees and expenses. The extraction states that AKRO claimed US$3,202,559.63 in unpaid Project Management Fees and expenses, while DDPL denied indebtedness and advanced counterclaims based on delay and fraud. The court later entered judgment against AKRO on its claim and assessed damages in DDPL’s favour on the existing judgment, showing that the contractual payment dispute was overtaken by the counterclaim findings. (Para 20, Para 75, Para 173)

"AKRO claimed US$3,202,559.63 in unpaid Project Management Fees and expenses." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 20

DDPL’s case was that AKRO delayed delivery of the Rig and then, in relation to procurement and payment, generated false or altered supplier documents. The extraction identifies a range of suppliers and documents said to be forged, fabricated, duplicated, or altered, including TMS, Carlton, LQT, Derrick, SMI, and Varco. The court’s findings later turned on whether those documents were genuine and whether they were used to manipulate DDPL’s records and payment decisions. (Para 77, Para 91, Para 93, Para 141, Para 151)

How did the court approach the allegations of fabricated invoices, quotes, and supplier documents?

The court treated the documentary allegations as central to the case. DDPL alleged that the quotes and invoices were forged, fabricated, or altered by AKRO through Mr Kandoth and/or Mr Fowler, either to inflate prices above what suppliers had actually quoted or to create documents where no genuine supplier quote or invoice existed. The court’s analysis therefore focused on the provenance of the documents, supplier confirmations, and the internal consistency of the records. (Para 77, Para 91, Para 93, Para 141)

"DDPL alleges that the quotes/invoices were forged and/or fabricated and/or altered by AKRO, through Mr Kandoth and/or Mr Fowler, to state prices that were higher than the prices actually quoted or invoiced by the suppliers for the Project, or to create quotes/invoices when no such quotes/invoices were obtained from suppliers for the Project." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 77

One important strand of the evidence concerned TMS. The court recorded an email from TMS confirming that it had only made two proposals, each consisting of one priced cover letter and one detailed scope of work in relation to the Rig. That confirmation supported the conclusion that the false TMS proposal had been created for provision to DDPL. The court described the conclusion as “irresistible,” indicating that the documentary evidence and supplier confirmation left little room for an innocent explanation. (Para 91, Para 93)

"TMS confirmed by way of an email dated 20 July 2017 that it had only made two proposals, with each proposal comprising one priced cover letter and one detailed scope of work in relation to the Rig." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 91

"The irresistible conclusion is that Mr Kandoth and/or Mr Fowler created the false TMS proposal for provision of it to DDPL." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 93

The court also relied on expert and comparative analysis. Mr Pal reviewed the Purchase Orders and invoices relating to TMS, Carlton, and LQT and concluded that those documents were fabricated. The extraction does not reproduce the full methodology, but it does show that the court accepted the expert’s assessment as part of the evidential basis for finding fabrication. This was not an isolated finding: the court later held that AKRO and the other Cross-Defendants created fabricated or falsified documents to benefit themselves and harm DDPL. (Para 141, Para 156)

"Mr Pal analysed the Purchase Orders and invoices referred to above in respect of TMS, Carlton and LQT and concluded that those documents were in fact fabricated." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 141

The court’s ultimate factual finding was not limited to one supplier or one set of documents. It found that AKRO, together with Mr Kandoth, Mr Fowler, Mr Arora, and Mr Kumar, created fabricated or falsified documents with the intention of harming DDPL and obtaining a benefit for themselves. That finding was central to liability on fraud, deceit, conspiracy, and fiduciary breach. (Para 156, Para 160)

"AKRO by itself and in concert with Mr Kandoth and Mr Fowler and Mr Arora and Mr Kumar created these fabricated or falsified documents. This conduct was pursued with the intention of harming DDPL and obtaining a benefit for itself." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 156

Why did the court find that AKRO owed fiduciary duties to DDPL?

The fiduciary-duty analysis turned on the role AKRO played in obtaining and choosing quotes for the project. The court held that AKRO undertook or agreed to act for or on behalf of DDPL in DDPL’s interests in the exercise of a power or discretion that would affect DDPL’s interests in a legal and practical sense. That characterization brought the relationship within fiduciary principles because AKRO was not merely an arm’s-length contractor in that aspect of the arrangement; it was entrusted with a function affecting DDPL’s procurement decisions. (Para 150)

"AKRO undertook or agreed to act for or on behalf of DDPL in its interests in the exercise of a power or discretion, (the obtaining of and choosing the quotes) which would affect the interests of DDPL in a legal and practical sense." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 150

In support of that conclusion, the court referred to fiduciary authorities including Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation, Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals, and Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal. The extraction shows that these authorities were used to ground the proposition that fiduciary obligations can arise where one party is entrusted with a discretionary power affecting another’s interests. The court then applied that principle to AKRO’s role in obtaining quotes. (Para 150)

"AKRO owed DDPL fiduciary duties to ensure that it obtained those quotes honestly: Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 68 and 96–97; Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals [2017] 1 SLR 654 at [194]; Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal [2018] 2 SLR 655 at [42]–[43]." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 150

Once that fiduciary relationship was established, the court had little difficulty concluding that the creation of false documents was a breach. It held that AKRO created false documents so that DDPL’s records would show that its own quotes were to be preferred. That conduct was inconsistent with the duty to act honestly in obtaining quotes for DDPL and was therefore a breach of fiduciary obligations. (Para 151)

"In breach of its fiduciary obligations AKRO created false documents so that DDPL’s records would show that its own quotes were to be preferred." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 151

The court’s reasoning also connected fiduciary breach to the broader fraud narrative. Because the false documents were created to manipulate DDPL’s procurement records and to secure a benefit for the wrongdoers, the fiduciary breach was not merely technical. It was part of a deliberate scheme to distort the decision-making process and to obtain money or advantage through dishonest means. (Para 151, Para 156, Para 160)

What did the court find about conspiracy, secret profits, and the involvement of Mr Kumar and Mr Arora?

DDPL’s counterclaim extended beyond AKRO to the individual Cross-Defendants. The extraction states that DDPL alleged Mr Kumar and Mr Arora conspired with Mr Fowler, Mr Kandoth, and AKRO by unlawful acts and means to defraud DDPL. The court’s findings went further, concluding that Mr Arora and Mr Kumar were in breach of fiduciary obligations by receiving secret profits in the form of cash payments and mobile phones. (Para 82, Para 155)

"DDPL also claims that Mr Kumar and Mr Arora by unlawful acts and means conspired with Mr Fowler, Mr Kandoth and AKRO to defraud DDPL by such conduct." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 82

The court’s factual finding on secret profits was explicit. It held that Mr Arora and Mr Kumar were clearly in breach of their fiduciary obligations to DDPL in receiving secret profits in the form of payments of cash and the receipt of mobile phones. The extraction does not provide a separate detailed narrative of each payment, but it does show that the court treated those benefits as secret profits obtained in breach of duty. (Para 155)

"Mr Arora and Mr Kumar were clearly in breach of their fiduciary obligations to DDPL in receiving secret profits in the form of payments of cash and the receipt of mobile phones." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 155

The court also found that Mr Kandoth admitted forging the documents submitted to DDPL for payment for the Rig together with Mr Kumar and Mr Arora. That admission was highly significant because it linked the documentary fraud to the individuals who were said to have participated in the scheme. The court’s overall conclusion was that the false documents were created in concert, not accidentally or in isolation. (Para 97, Para 156)

"Mr Kandoth admitted that he indeed forged the documents that were submitted to DDPL for payment for the Rig together with Mr Kumar and Mr Arora." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 97

On the conspiracy case, the extraction shows that the court accepted DDPL’s theory that the Cross-Defendants acted together to defraud DDPL. The court’s language in paragraph 156 is especially important because it identifies the collective conduct and the shared intention to harm DDPL and benefit the wrongdoers. That finding underpinned the judgment entered against the Cross-Defendants on DDPL’s balance claims. (Para 156, Para 174)

How did the court assess damages for delay in delivery of the Rig and Spencer Ogden charges?

The court first assessed damages on the judgments already entered in DDPL’s favour against AKRO. It held that damages for delay in delivery of the Rig were US$2,293,036 and damages in respect of the Spencer Ogden payments were US$352,324.46, producing a total of US$2,645,360.46. The extraction does not reproduce the full arithmetic or the underlying contractual formula, but it does state the final assessment and the two components. (Para 75, Para 173)

"Damages in respect of the Judgments that have been entered in DDPL’s favour are assessed in the total amount of US$2,645,360.46 comprising damages in respect of the delay in delivery of the Rig assessed at US$2,293,036, and in respect of the Spencer Ogden payments assessed at US$352,324.46." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 75

The court then formalized that assessment in the orders. It entered judgment in favour of DDPL against AKRO in the amount of US$2,645,360.46. This was not a fresh liability finding in isolation; rather, it was the quantified consequence of the earlier judgments and the court’s assessment of the damages flowing from the delay and Spencer Ogden payments. (Para 173)

"In respect of the Judgment already entered in favour of Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd against AKRO Group DMCC, damages are assessed at US$2,645,360.46." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 173

Although the extraction does not set out the full evidential basis for the delay and Spencer Ogden figures, it does show that the court treated them as distinct heads of loss and assessed them separately before combining them. For practitioners, the significance lies in the court’s willingness to quantify damages on an existing judgment while the broader fraud and conspiracy claims were still being resolved. (Para 75, Para 173, Para 59)

How did the court calculate damages for the fabricated and inflated invoices?

The court accepted a percentage-based approach to the fabricated invoices. Mr Pal reviewed the fabricated invoices and assessed the percentage by which AKRO and/or AYBI had inflated the charges. He averaged those percentages at 35.57% and then calculated 35.57% of the amounts of the invoices that were paid for the services provided. The extraction does not provide the underlying spreadsheet or each invoice line item, but it does provide the method and the resulting figure. (Para 145)

"Mr Pal reviewed the fabricated invoices and made an assessment of the percentage by which AKRO and/or AYBI had inflated the charges. He then averaged those percentages at 35.57%. Mr Pal then calculated 35.57% of the amounts of the invoices that were paid for the services provided." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 145

Using that approach, the court entered judgment for DDPL on the balance of its claims against the Cross-Defendants in the amount of US$5,743,155.14. It also entered a separate judgment against AYBI in the amount of US$1,163,318.86. The extraction does not explain every component of those sums, but it makes clear that the court accepted the expert-driven assessment as the basis for quantifying the loss caused by the fabricated and unsupported invoices. (Para 174)

"Judgment is entered in favour of Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd on the balance of its claims against each of AKRO Group DMCC, the First Cross-Defendant, Parmod Kumar, the Second Cross-Defendant, Sunil Kumar Arora, the Third Cross-Defendant, Arjun Suresh Kandoth, the Fourth Cross-Defendant, David William Fowler, the Fifth Cross-Defendant in the amount of US$5,743,155.14." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 174

The court’s treatment of AYBI is also important because it shows that liability was not confined to AKRO alone. The extraction records that AYBI was separately liable for US$1,163,318.86, reflecting the court’s view that AYBI’s invoices were part of the same fraudulent or inflated billing pattern. This reinforces the court’s broader finding that the documentary manipulation was systematic rather than isolated. (Para 174, Para 145, Para 156)

Why did the court reject punitive damages?

DDPL sought punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duties. The court acknowledged the request and cited the governing principle that punitive damages may be awarded where the totality of the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence, and condemnation. The extraction shows that the court considered the issue expressly, but it does not indicate that the threshold was met on the facts as found. (Para 163)

"DDPL seeks punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duties." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 163

"Punitive damages may be awarded ‘where the totality of the defendant's conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence and condemnation’" — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 163

Although the conduct found by the court was serious—fabrication of documents, intentional misrepresentations, breach of fiduciary duty, and receipt of secret profits—the extraction does not record an award of punitive damages. Instead, the court confined relief to compensatory damages, interest, and costs. That outcome suggests that, on the court’s assessment, the compensatory and costs orders were the appropriate remedies on the evidence and legal threshold presented. (Para 163, Para 173, Para 174, Para 179)

For practitioners, the significance is that even in a case involving deliberate falsification and dishonest conduct, punitive damages are not automatic. The court’s citation of ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others shows that the legal test remained demanding, and the final orders demonstrate that the court did not consider the case to warrant punishment beyond the substantial compensatory awards and costs. (Para 163, Para 174, Para 179)

What did the court conclude about the overall pattern of dishonesty and the intentional nature of the representations?

The court’s most important factual and legal conclusion was that the false documents were created deliberately. It found that AKRO, together with the individual Cross-Defendants, created fabricated or falsified documents with the intention of harming DDPL and obtaining a benefit for themselves. That finding was not merely descriptive; it was the foundation for the conclusions on fraud, deceit, conspiracy, and fiduciary breach. (Para 156)

"I am satisfied that the representations that were made in the falsified documents were intentionally made for the above-mentioned purposes." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 160

The court’s reasoning linked intention to the purpose of the documents. The false documents were used so that DDPL’s records would show that the wrongdoers’ own quotes were to be preferred. In other words, the documents were not simply inaccurate; they were instruments of manipulation. That is why the court treated the conduct as intentional misrepresentation and as a breach of fiduciary obligations. (Para 151, Para 156, Para 160)

The court also found that the conduct was pursued with the intention of harming DDPL and obtaining a benefit for the wrongdoers. This dual purpose—harm to DDPL and benefit to the wrongdoers—was central to the court’s assessment of dishonesty. It explains why the court accepted DDPL’s case on fraud and conspiracy and why it entered substantial judgment in DDPL’s favour. (Para 156, Para 174)

What orders did the court make on interest and costs?

The extraction records that interest was ordered at 5.33% per annum. It does not provide the precise commencement date or the detailed basis for that rate, but it does show that the court included interest as part of the final relief. The court also ordered each Cross-Defendant to pay DDPL’s reasonable costs of the proceedings. (Para 174, Para 169, Para 179)

"The Cross-Defendants are to pay Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd its reasonable costs of the proceedings." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 179

The court explained that, in all the circumstances, an order should be made against each Cross-Defendant for DDPL’s reasonable costs. The extraction also notes that DDPL had incurred great expense in obtaining genuine supplier documents, which appears to have informed the court’s costs disposition. The final order therefore reflected both the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the practical burden imposed on DDPL in proving its case. (Para 169, Para 179)

The costs order is significant because it was made against each Cross-Defendant, not merely against AKRO. That allocation is consistent with the court’s finding that the false documents and dishonest conduct were created in concert. It also underscores the court’s view that the litigation burden should fall on those responsible for the fabrication and fraud. (Para 156, Para 169, Para 179)

Why does this case matter for international commercial litigation and fraud claims?

This case matters because it combines an offshore-case jurisdiction ruling with a detailed merits judgment on fabricated documents, fiduciary breach, fraud, and conspiracy in an international commercial setting. The court had to decide whether the matter had a substantial connection to Singapore, and then, once that threshold issue was resolved, it had to assess a complex evidential record involving supplier confirmations, expert analysis, and admissions. (Para 48, Para 52, Para 53, Para 91, Para 141, Para 156)

"The work that was done by DDPL and AsiaLegal LLC to establish the alleged fraud and conspiracy has been very detailed and, in some respects, procedurally complex because it is alleged that AKRO and the other Cross-Defendants created false invoices and other documents throughout the contractual period." — Per Patricia Bergin IJ, Para 43

It also matters because the court treated the procurement and quotation process as capable of giving rise to fiduciary obligations. That is a notable feature for commercial lawyers: a party may owe fiduciary duties where it undertakes to act for or on behalf of another in obtaining and choosing quotes, especially where that discretion affects the other party’s legal and practical interests. The court’s application of fiduciary principles to the facts demonstrates how commercial arrangements can generate equitable obligations beyond the express contract. (Para 150, Para 151)

Finally, the case is important because it shows how a court may quantify loss in a fraud-heavy commercial dispute using expert analysis and percentage-based inflation calculations. The court accepted a methodology that averaged inflation percentages and applied them to paid invoices, while also separately assessing delay-related losses and Spencer Ogden payments. For practitioners, the case is a useful illustration of how documentary fraud can be translated into recoverable damages. (Para 75, Para 145, Para 173, Para 174)

Cases Referred To

Legislation Referenced

• Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 36O (Para 48) [CDN] [SSO]
• Legal Profession (Representation in Singapore International Commercial Court) Rules 2014 (Cap 161, S 851), Rule 3(2) (Para 48)
• Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 110 rr 36(1) and 36(2) (Para 40)
• Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 3 r 4 (Para 40)
• Rules of Court, O 110 r 1(2)(f) (Para 48) [CDN] [SSO]
• Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) (Para 52)

Source Documents

• Original Judgment — Singapore Courts
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2019] SGHCI 8 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.