Manjit Kaur Monica v Standard Chartered Bank: Setting Aside Statutory Demand & Creditor's Petition

In Manjit Kaur Monica v Standard Chartered Bank, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Manjit Kaur Monica to set aside a Statutory Demand and dismiss a Creditor's Petition filed against her by Standard Chartered Bank. The application stemmed from a shortfall after the bank sold a mortgaged property. The court allowed the bank's appeal, finding the applicant's claims of a higher potential sale price and improper sale by the bank to be unsubstantiated and a sham.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to set aside a Statutory Demand and dismiss a Creditor’s Petition. The court allowed the appeal, finding no genuine dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Manjit Kaur MonicaApplicant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostAlagappan Arunsalam
Standard Chartered BankRespondentCorporationAppeal AllowedWonMeat Kaur

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alagappan ArunsalamA Alagappan & Co
Meat KaurWilliam Lai & Alan Wong

4. Facts

  1. Applicant and her husband took a loan from the Bank secured by a mortgage on their property.
  2. The Bank exercised its rights as mortgagee and obtained an order for possession.
  3. The front and rear walls of the house on the property had been torn down.
  4. The Bank put up the Property for auction but no bids were received.
  5. The Applicant wrote to the Bank stating that she had a buyer for the Property at $550,000.
  6. The Bank sold the Property for $650,000, resulting in a shortfall.
  7. The Applicant negotiated with the Bank to pay the Shortfall in instalments.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Manjit Kaur Monica v Standard Chartered Bank, OS 60/2000, Ra 600234/2000, [2000] SGHC 205

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant and her husband bought a property for $1,080,000 and took a loan of $875,000 from the Bank.
Bank commenced an action in Originating Summons No 18 of 1998 against the Applicant.
Bank obtained an order for possession.
Writ of Possession was executed on the Property.
Nuisance order was issued against the Property.
Knight Frank valued the fair market value of the Property at $450,000 to $480,000.
Sheriff of the Supreme Court issued a notice threatening eviction.
Bank put up the Property for auction; no bids were received.
Offers from $585,000 to $610,000 were received through an estate agent Gates P. Properties and through Jones Lang Wootton.
Applicant informed the Bank that she had a buyer for the Property at $550,000.
Bank contacted the Applicant to inform her that the Bank had sold the Property for $650,000.
Balance due to the Bank was $343,970.64.
Bank’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to the Applicant and her husband for the shortfall.
Applicant attended at the Bank’s office.
Applicant negotiated with the Bank to pay the Shortfall.
Applicant negotiated with the Bank to pay the Shortfall.
Applicant negotiated with the Bank to pay the Shortfall.
Bank’s solicitors sent a letter to the Applicant and her husband stating that the Bank was prepared to allow them to pay the Shortfall in instalments.
Bank sent a letter to the Applicant and her husband.
Applicant replied to the Bank requesting a grace period of fourteen days to respond.
Applicant replied to the Bank’s solicitors to make an appointment to collect the Statutory Demand.
Bank’s solicitors issued a Statutory Demand against the Applicant.
Solicitors wrote to the Applicant and her husband to reject their request to collect the Statutory Demands on 6 March 2000.
Creditor’s Petition No 1020/2000 was filed against the Applicant.
Creditor’s Petition was served by substituted service.
Bank’s solicitors sent a cover letter and a copy of the Creditor’s Petition to the Applicant.
M/s A. Alagappan & Co, acting for the Applicant, wrote to the Bank’s solicitors to say that the petition had not been served on the Applicant.
Originating Summons was filed.
Assistant Registrar ordered that the Statutory Demand be set aside with costs against the Bank.
Appeal allowed with costs (on an indemnity basis).
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no genuine dispute and allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial decision to set aside the statutory demand.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Genuine dispute over debt
      • Failure to act in good faith
      • Failure to obtain best possible price
    • Related Cases:
      • (2000) 34 ACSR 177
      • (1994) 12 ACSR 785
  2. Duty of Mortgagee
    • Outcome: The court found that the bank had fulfilled its duty as a mortgagee to obtain the best possible price for the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty to act in good faith
      • Duty to obtain best possible price
    • Related Cases:
      • (1997) 1 MLJ 662
      • (1999) 3 SLR 129
      • (1982) WLR 1410
      • (1997) 2 SLR 713
      • (1971) Ch 949

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
  2. Dismissal of Creditor's Petition

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Mortgage Agreement

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Stirling Estates (SA) Pty Ltd v BradleyN/AYes(2000) 34 ACSR 177N/ACited for the interpretation of 'genuine dispute' in the context of setting aside a statutory demand.
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty LtdN/AYes(1994) 12 ACSR 785N/ACited for the definition of 'genuine dispute' as a plausible contention requiring investigation.
Eng Mee Yong v LetchumannN/AYes[1980] AC 331N/ACited to illustrate what does not give rise to a genuine dispute.
South Australia v WallN/AYes(1980) 24 SASR 189N/ACited to illustrate what does not give rise to a genuine dispute.
Re Morris Catering (Aust) Pty LtdN/AYesRe Morris Catering (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 601N/ACited for the court's role in assessing the position between parties and preserving demands where there is no genuine dispute.
Malayan Banking Bhd v Lim Poh Ho & anorN/AYes(1997) 1 MLJ 662N/ACited for the principle that the true commercial value of a property is the actual price it fetches in the open market, not a valuer's opinion.
Teo Siew Har v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation LtdN/AYes(1999) 3 SLR 129SingaporeCited for the principle that it is for the bank to decide when to sell the property.
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v WalkerN/AYes(1982) WLR 1410N/ACited by the applicant to argue that there were triable issues of fact regarding the sale of charged stock.
Lee Nyet Khiong v Lee Nyet Yun JanetN/AYes(1997) 2 SLR 713SingaporeCited by the applicant to argue that the advertisement to sell the property was woefully inadequate.
Cuckmere Brick v Mutual FinanceN/AYes(1971) Ch 949N/ACited by the applicant to argue that the mortgagee had failed in its duty in selling the mortgaged property without adequately publicising planning permission had been obtained to build flats.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Bankruptcy Rules
The Supreme Court Practice Directions

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence ActSingapore
Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory Demand
  • Creditor's Petition
  • Mortgagee
  • Shortfall
  • Auction
  • Valuation
  • Good Faith

15.2 Keywords

  • Statutory Demand
  • Creditor's Petition
  • Mortgage
  • Property Sale
  • Bankruptcy
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Mortgages
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Mortgage Law