Panjacharam Raveentheran and Another v Mookka Pillai Rajagopal and Others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChristopher Lau JC
Judgment Date05 August 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGHC 207
Docket NumberSuit No 237 of 1994 (Summons in
Date05 August 1997
Published date19 September 2003
Year1997
Plaintiff CounselLinus Pereira (L Pereira & Netto)
Citation[1997] SGHC 207
Defendant CounselN Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterSale of land,Sale of property,Delay in completion,Completion,Sale of property subject to Singapore Law Society's Conditions of Sale 1981,Whether purchasers entitled to late completion interest,Delay in completion due solely to vendors' default,Vendors failing to withdraw caveats in time for completion,Vendors failed to remove caveats and deliver title free from encumbrances on completion,Whether purchasers entitled to specific performance,Land
Judgment:

CHRISTOPHER LAU JC

The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their summary judgment application in this action against the defendants were orders for: (a). specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property owned by the defendants and various consequential orders;

(b). damages for late completion of the said sale from 21 February 1994 at 10% per annum to be assessed;

(c). liberty to deduct the damages assessed from the balance of the purchase price payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants on the completion of the sale of the property.

2.The orders I made were these: (a). the plaintiffs be at liberty to enter judgment for specific performance of the agreement for sale contained in the defendants` option to purchase dated 18 October 1993 and duly exercised by the plaintiffs on 1 November 1993;

(b). the sale to be completed within thirty days from the date of the order;

(c). the plaintiffs be at liberty to deduct the outstanding property tax payable on the property by the defendants from the balance of the purchase price payable by the plaintiffs on the completion of the sale;

(d). the plaintiffs be at liberty to redeem and discharge the mortgages and withdraw the orders of court registered against the property on the defendants` behalf;

(e). the Registrar of the Supreme Court be empowered to execute the transfer and all other documents relating to the transfer, the discharge of the mortgages and the withdrawal of the orders of court on the defendants` behalf in order to vest the legal title of the property in the plaintiffs upon the plaintiffs paying the balance of the purchase price;

(f). the defendants to deliver up vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs within sixty days from the date of the order;

(g). the parties be at liberty to apply for further directions;

(h). the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs by way of liquidated damages interest on the purchase price of S$1,300,000 at the rate of 10% per annum from 21 February 1994 to 22 January 1997;

(i). the plaintiffs be at liberty to deduct the said damages or so much thereof as the plaintiffs shall deem fit from the balance of the purchase price payable by the plaintiffs on the completion of the sale of the property;

(j). the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the plaintiffs` application fixed at S$5,000.

3.These are my reasons.

4. The option

In an option to purchase dated 18 October 1993 (the option) given by the defendants to the plaintiffs on the payment of S$13,000.00 by the plaintiffs to the defendants, the defendants agreed the sale of a freehold property at 91 Jalan Seaview Singapore (the property) to the plaintiffs free from all encumbrances at a price of S$1,300,000 subject to the terms and conditions contained in the option.

5.The option provided for: (a). the sale being made subject to the Singapore Law Society`s Conditions of Sale 1981 so long as these were not varied by or inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the option (cl 1);

(b). the title to be in order and free from encumbrances (cl 2);

(c). the sale to be completed within 16 weeks of 1 November 1993 ie on or before 21 February 1994 and for the balance of the purchase price to be paid on completion (cl 4);

(d). the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs on completion (cl 5);

(e). the option to expire if it was not validly exercised by the plaintiffs on or before 1 November 1993 at 4pm (cl 8).

6.Conditions 8(b) and 8(c) of the Singapore Law Society`s Conditions of Sale 1981 provided for payment of damages for late completion. They are of such importance that I shall set these out in full. They provide as follows:

If the sale shall not have been completed on or before the date fixed for completion, then -

(a)

(b) If the delay in completion is attributable solely to the default of the vendor, he shall pay to the purchaser by way of liquidated damages interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the purchase price of the property from and including the date fixed for completion until the day of actual completion: provided that if possession of the property sold has been delivered by the vendor to the purchaser before the date of actual completion then such damages shall be abated by a sum equal to the rent received by the purchaser or in case the property is delivered with vacant possession by the equivalent of a rent calculated on the annual value of the property fixed under the Property Tax Act.

(c) If the delay in completion is attributable to some cause other than the default of the vendor or the purchaser or to the default of both the vendor and the purchaser, no interest or damages shall be payable.

In the context of this action, the `purchasers` are the plaintiffs and the `vendors` are the defendants.

7. The delay in completion

From the affidavit evidence filed in this action, the following emerged. On the grant of the option, Mr L Pereira, who acted for the plaintiffs, had a title search on the property carried out on 22 October 1993. The search revealed that one Khushvinder Singh Chopra (Khushvinder) had, on 18 October 1993, lodged a caveat on the property pursuant to an option the defendants had purportedly given him on 14 October 1993.

8.Notwithstanding Khushvinder`s caveat, the defendants indicated they were still selling the property to the plaintiffs and agreed that instead of the sum of S$117,000 (being the balance of the 10% deposit payable by the plaintiffs on the exercise of the option) being paid to them directly on the option`s being exercised, that the sum was to be retained by their solicitors as stakeholders pending completion. The defendants indicated that they would have Khushvinder`s caveat withdrawn on or before the date fixed for completion ie 21 February 1994. On this understanding, on 1 November 1993, the plaintiffs exercised the option.

9.The plaintiffs proceeded to sell their house, to apply for a bank loan and the release of their CPF funds for the purchase of the property. The plaintiffs also executed the mortgage and CPF documentation. They were ready to complete.

10.The defendants were however unable to persuade Khushvinder to withdraw his earlier caveat and a further caveat that he had lodged on the property in November 1993.

11.On 20 January 1994, Messrs Bannir & Associates, the solicitors acting for the defendants in the sale in a letter informed Mr Pereira that the defendants had decided to sell the property to Khushvinder, saying that the plaintiffs could take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

12.The plaintiffs did. On 17 February 1994, they commenced this action for specific performance and/or in the alternative, damages for breach of contract.

13.On 28 February 1994, Mr Sreenivasan who had been instructed by the defendants to act on their behalf in this action...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Poh Choon Kia and another v Lim Hoe Heng and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 de abril de 2012
    ...the failure to remove the caveat was also a default on the first defendant’s part: Panjacharam Raveentheran v Mooka Pillai Rajagopal [1997] 2 SLR(R) 700). The plaintiffs stated that they did not consent to the postponement of the completion date subsequent to the HDB’s letter dated 25 Febru......
  • Poh Choon Kia and another v Lim Hoe Heng and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 de abril de 2012
    ...the failure to remove the caveat was also a default on the first defendant’s part: Panjacharam Raveentheran v Mooka Pillai Rajagopal [1997] 2 SLR(R) 700). The plaintiffs stated that they did not consent to the postponement of the completion date subsequent to the HDB’s letter dated 25 Febru......
1 books & journal articles
  • THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” RULE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 de dezembro de 2003
    ...Principles and Myths”(2003) Singapore Law Gazette 12. 4 Supra note 1. 5 Cf Panjacharam Raveentheran & Anor v Mookka Pillai Rajagopal [1998] 1 SLR 28 at 34, para 24 (failure to stipulate that the correspondence was “without prejudice” was taken against the claim of privilege). 6 E.g., Rush &......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT