Mookka Pillai Rajagopal and Others v Khushvinder Singh Chopra

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date06 March 1996
Date06 March 1996
Docket NumberSuit No 474 of 1994
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 cases
  • The Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh Chopra
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 Septiembre 1998
    ...Facts The facts leading to the complaint against the respondent were set out comprehensively in two decisions, one in the High Court ([1996] 2 SLR 379) (`the High Court`s decision`) and one in the Court of Appeal ([1996] 3 SLR 457) (`the Court of Appeal`s decision`). Both decisions arose wh......
  • Mookka Pillai Rajagopal and Others v Khushvinder Singh Chopra
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 7 Octubre 1996
    ...was not in a position to exert influence in respect of the option. He said [See Khushvinder Singh Chopra v Mookka Pillai Rajagopal [1996] 1 SLR (R) 367 at [76]]: I find that the plaintiff became the defendants' solicitor on or about 22 October 1993 when he communicated his acceptance of the......
  • Mooka Pillai Rajagopal and Others v Khushvinder Singh Chopra
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 Agosto 1997
    ...judge held that the statutory declaration and certain letters written by the appellants` solicitors had affirmed the transaction. (See [1996] 2 SLR 379.) The appellants appealed maintaining that there was undue influence, and that there was no affirmation of the transactions. The Court of A......
3 books & journal articles
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 Diciembre 1998
    ...234 See ibid. 235 (1887) 36 ChD 145. 236 Sec the Sub-Section entitled “Linkages Amongst the Categories of Undue Influence”, infra. 237 [1996] 2 SLR 379. 238 This is, of course, the holding in CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1994] 1 AC 200. 239 See [1996] 2 SLR 379 at 399 (emphasis added). 240 [19......
  • UNDUE INFLUENCE, UNCONSCIONABILITY AND GOOD FAITH
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1996, December 1996
    • 1 Diciembre 1996
    ...n 29 at 309. 45 Supra n 9 at footnote 102. See also T Duggan “Undue Influence” in Parkinson ed. Principles of Equity (1996) at 394—6. 46 [1996] 2 SLR 379. 47 Hart v O’Connor [1985] 1 AC 1000 at 1021 (PC); see also Fehlberg supra n 23 at 678. 48 [1996] 1 SLR 75 at 106. 49 See Watkins v Coomb......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...supra n 212, at 558—563 as well as, by the same writer, supra n 1, at 42—44. 227 See generally Phang, supra n 1, at 45—46. 228 See [1996] 2 SLR 379 at 399; reversed in Mooka Pillai Rajagopal v Kushvinder Singh Chopra[1996] 3 SLR 457, but not on this particular point. 229 Cf, though, the rec......