Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala
Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
Judgment Date | 04 August 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGHC 185 |
Citation | [2011] SGHC 185 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 23 April 2012 |
Docket Number | Suit No 8 of 2011 (Registrar’s Appeal No 140 of 2011) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lai Yew Fei and Khelvin Xu Cunhan (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Patrick Chin Meng Liong and Wong Chai Kin (briefed) (R S Wijaya & Co) |
Subject Matter | Conflict of Laws,choice of jurisdiction,non-exclusive |
Hearing Date | 20 June 2011,03 August 2011,14 July 2011,30 June 2011 |
The respondent is a company registered in the Cayman Islands. The appellant is an Indian national residing in Singapore. He entered into several contracts with the respondent. The appellant failed to discharge his obligations under those contracts. Consequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on 28 May 2010 with a view of resolving his breach of the earlier agreements. The appellant contracted thus to pay US$2,500,000 by 28 November 2010. The appellant failed to pay as agreed and by reason of which, the respondent now claims in this suit the full sum of US$6,500,000 (owing under earlier agreement) plus interests amounting to US$261,780.82.
The appellant applied to stay the respondent’s suit on the ground that Singapore is not the proper forum. He relied on the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the settlement agreement which provided that —
His application was dismissed and he appealed before me.the agreement is governed by and in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong SAR. The parties submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong SAR. The parties hereby knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waive to the fullest extent permitted by law any rights they may have to trial by jury in respect of any litigation based hereon, or arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement.
Both parties cited
In this case, the only material factors facing off were the fact that the parties had chosen Hong Kong as the appropriate forum, and the fact that the appellant and his family are resident here, and he appears to have business in Singapore although the respondent had acknowledged that the original contracts were made to further the appellant’s business in “India, China and USA”. The respondent’s counsel conceded that witness testimony in this case was not material as the claim would be essentially a construction of the contract. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala
...1 This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (‘the Judge’) in Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2011]SGHC 185 (‘the GD’). The respondent (‘the Respondent’) had applied to stay the action brought by the appellant (‘the Appellant’) against the Respondent......
-
Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann
...the High Court in that case apparently applied the modified Spiliada approach (see Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2011] SGHC 185 at [5]), the plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the stay order was allowed. Therefore, my initial view about the ordinary mea......
-
Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala
...This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) in Orchard Capital I Limited v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2011] SGHC 185 (“the GD”). The Respondent had applied to stay the action brought by the Appellant against the Respondent. The application was dismissed by......
-
Conflict of Laws
...519 looks at the treatment of jurisdiction clauses in a stay of proceedings application. This case was an appeal from the High Court in [2011] SGHC 185 (digested in the previous year's SAL Ann Rev). The facts are uncomplicated. Stated briefly, the parties entered into a settlement agreement......
-
Conflict of Laws
...of these two different types of jurisdiction clauses should of course be different. Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala[2011] SGHC 185 is a straightforward treatment of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. In this case, there was a non-exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause i......