Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd v Pardeep Singh Boparai and another

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date05 July 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 191
Citation[2010] SGHC 191
Docket NumberSuit No 224 of 2010 (Summons No 1440 and 1465 of 2010)
Publication Date07 July 2010
Plaintiff CounselVergis S Abraham, Clive Myint Soe and Vikna Rajah s/o Thambirajah (Drew & Napier LLC)
Defendant CounselS Suressh and Sunil Nair (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
SubjectCivil procedure
Choo Han Teck J:

The applications by the parties related to an interim injunction against the defendants. For the reasons below, I allowed the defendants’ application to set aside the injunction order made pursuant to an ex parte application by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff Rikvin Consultancy and the second defendant Janus Corporate Solutions are competitors in the business of providing corporate secretarial services. The first defendant Pardeep Singh Bopari is a shareholder and director of Janus Corporate Solutions. On 10 March 2010, Rikvin’s Managing Director, Ms Ragini Dhanvantray, pleaded guilty to three charges under the Companies Act for authorizing the lodging of false information with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (“ACRA”). Two similar charges were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. Ragini was fined a total of $21,000. On 16 March 2010, ACRA issued a press release in respect of this matter. Around 1 April 2010, the defendants published the following (“the article”) on the website Guide Me Singapore:

Janus Offer to Rikvin Clients

On March 10, 2010 Ms Ragini Dhanvantray, the Managing Director of a Singapore based corporate services provided named Rikvin, pleaded guilty to charges arising out of multiple violations of the Companies Act of Singapore…

In the light of the above, if you are re-evaluating your relationship with Rikvin, we would like you to consider switching to Janus. Janus offers a complete range of company administration and compliance services through its experienced team and affordable fees. To assist clients who want to move away from Rikvin but may have some time remaining on their pre-paid services with Rikvin, Janus is making the following offer:

Janus will not charge you for any fees that you have pre-paid to RIkvin. The offer is subject to a maximum free period of 6 months.

Please fill out our online form if you are interested in transferring your relationship to Janus.

The defendants referred to Ragini’s conviction and made an offer to the customers of Rikvin who wished to have Janus take over the corporate services. Apart from the article, Pardeep Singh also admitted to issuing similar press releases on two other business websites (“the press releases”).

Rikvin therefore brought an action against the defendants. First, it argued that the defendants had knowledge of its contracts, and embarked on a targeted campaign to intentionally induce its existing clients to breach their contracts. Secondly, it alleged that the contents of the article or press releases were defamatory. It contended that the article and press releases were understood to mean that it had conducted its business in a way that was criminal or improper, and, as a consequence, its reputation has been or is likely to have been seriously damaged. Thirdly, it contended that the defendants engaged in unfair practices as defined in s 4(a) of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2009 Rev Ed), causing it to suffer loss and damage. Fourthly, it contended that the defendants deliberately used unlawful means to interfere with its trade or business interests. Therefore, it claimed for an injunction to permanently restrain the defendants from posting or publishing the article or any other similar article elsewhere.

The defendants denied the above allegations. First, they denied procuring breaches of contract by Rikvin’s customers, or using unlawful means to interfere with Rikvin’s trade or business interests. The defendants contended that the contracts in question provided for early termination. Secondly, the defendants denied that the article or press releases were defamatory. They contended that the natural and ordinary meaning of the article factually described Rikvin’s managing director having pleaded guilty to multiple violations of the Companies Act, and so, even if the words have a defamatory meaning and/or innuendo, they were true in substance and in fact, or were published on occasion of qualified privilege. Finally, they contended s 4(a) of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another suit
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 October 2012
    ...suffer “irremediable prejudice” that cannot be put right by damages (Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd v Pardeep Singh Boparai and another [2010] SGHC 191). It is difficult to see how Virsagi would suffer irremediable prejudice if Badal/Gazipur were not forced to specifically perform the Gazipur A......
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...of the six medical experts: see Teo Ai Ling at [20]-[22]. Injunctions 8.59 In Rivkin Consultancy Pte Ltd v Pardeep Singh Boparai [2010] SGHC 191 (‘Rivkin’) Choo Han Teck J reiterated the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal in NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd [2008......

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