PT International Nickel Indonesia v General Trading Corp (M) Sdn Bhd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1977
• Neutral Citation: [1977] SGCA 1
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 37 of 1976
• Date: 12 May 1977
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1977
• Plaintiff Counsel: Francis Patrick Neill QC and Christopher Law (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Citation: [1977] SGCA 1
• Defendant Counsel: Dennis Murphy and Robert Wee (PT Wong & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Leave to defend,Whether case disclosed triable issues,O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Civil Procedure,Summary judgment

Cur Adv Vult

At the end of the hearing of this appeal we allowed the appeal with costs and indicated that we will give our reasons in writing at a later date. We do so now.

The appellants in this case, PT International Nickel Indonesia, were sued by the respondents, General Trading Corp (M) Sdn Bhd for the sum of Malaysian $373,586.52 (equivalent to Singapore $366,114.79) being the price of timber sold and delivered under four purchase orders dated 25 October 1975, 13 November 1975, 25 November 1975 and 28 November 1975.

The respondents sought summary judgment under O 14. The registrar gave the respondents leave to sign final judgment in the sum claimed and costs. On appeal to the judge in chambers the learned Chief Justice upheld the registrar`s decision.

There is no dispute as to the terms of the contracts and as to delivery. A series of transactions took place between the parties in the period February 1974 to November 1975, (a total of some 35 contracts of sale) whereby the respondents sold and the appellants bought timber for shipment to Indonesia for a total invoiced price of Singapore $3,632,730, all of which said sum has been paid apart from the sum of Malaysian $373,586.52 now claimed by the respondents in respect of the four purchase orders as set out above.

The defence set up was that these 35 contracts were arranged by one DS Calvert, the then purchasing officer of the appellants, acting on behalf of the appellants and one Panjwani acting on behalf of the respondents; that the price charged for the timber was nearly double its fair market price (which is put at S$1,790,355); that the prices comprised in the 35 contracts `were knowingly and wilfully inflated beyond the fair market price aforesaid and the price charged by the plaintiffs in respect of bona fide transactions by virtue of a fraudulent conspiracy between Calvert and the said Panjwani`; that the respondents `have to the extent of S$1,468,808.48 been unjustly enriched thereby`; and that the respondents `knew or ought to have known that they were being unjustly enriched as aforesaid and cannot now be heard to say that they are entitled to the said sum of M$373,586.52`; that the respondents `are in any event liable for the fraud of the said Panjwani who was their servant or agent in respect of the transactions the subject of the said Purchase Orders`; that `the contracts on which the plaintiffs are suing were corrupt and illegal bargains entered into contrary to public policy and in violation of statute`; that the said contracts are void; that if the said contracts are not void they are voidable and `the defendants hereby elect to avoid and/or rescind the same`.

The appellants counterclaim the sum of S$1,468, 808.48 `being monies had and received to the use of the defendants and/or being the sum by which the plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched`.

The appellants allege that the reason for the excessive purchase price was that Calvert and Panjwani fraudulently conspired together knowingly and wilfully to inflate the price and that Calvert`s motive for accepting the inflated prices was that he received a secret commission or bribe in respect of each purchase; that Panjwani was a commission agent and was the respondents` representative in Singapore and it is a fair inference from the evidence that the higher the purchase price the greater would be Panjwani`s commission; that most of the transactions were arranged in violation of the proper procedure, namely that competitive bids to be obtained and the lowest trade tender to be chosen.

The appellants say that they began to investigate the transactions in January 1976 making use of their auditors, Messrs Price Waterhouse & Co for this purpose; that in February 1976 they first learned of the fraudulent activities of Calvert and Panjwani when they found that another timber supplier of theirs, American Timber Products Inc/Woodtech Services Pte Ltd had charged them grossly inflated prices and that Panjwani and Calvert were also involved in this matter and had an arrangement for sharing the difference between the...