CHS CPO GmbH v Vikas Goel: Discharge of Anton Piller & Mareva Injunctions for Fraud & Asset Dissipation

In CHS CPO GmbH and Another v Vikas Goel and Others, the Singapore High Court addressed applications by Vikas Goel, Esys Distribution Pte Ltd, and Karma Distribution (S) Pte Ltd to discharge a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order obtained by CHS CPO GmbH and Karma International SARL. The plaintiffs alleged fraud and conspiracy to misappropriate assets. The court, presided over by Woo Bih Li J, discharged the Mareva injunction due to non-disclosure of material facts and the absence of a real risk of asset dissipation, but upheld the Anton Piller order. The court also ordered an inquiry into damages payable by the plaintiffs, deferring the inquiry until after the action was struck out or the trial outcome.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mareva injunction discharged in respect of Esys, Goel and Karma Singapore; Anton Piller order not discharged.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered discharging Anton Piller and Mareva injunctions against Vikas Goel for alleged fraud and asset dissipation. The court discharged the Mareva injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Vikas GoelDefendantIndividualMareva injunction dischargedWon
CHS CPO GmbHPlaintiffCorporationMareva injunction dischargedPartial
Karma International SARLPlaintiffCorporationMareva injunction dischargedPartial
Neeraj ChauhanDefendantIndividualNo order madeNeutral
Esys Distribution Pte LtdDefendantCorporationMareva injunction dischargedWon
Karma Distribution (S) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationMareva injunction dischargedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nigel PereiraKhattarWong
Francis XavierRajah & Tann
Julian SoongRajah & Tann
Jiang Ke-YueLee & Lee
Gan Theng ChongLee & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs alleged defendants defrauded them of interest and holdings in Karma ME FZE.
  2. Plaintiffs claimed defendants liable to account for misappropriated profits and assets.
  3. Plaintiffs claimed defendants were liable as constructive trustees.
  4. Plaintiffs claimed defendants conspired to defraud them of profits and assets.
  5. Plaintiffs obtained ex parte Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.
  6. Defendants applied to set aside the Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.
  7. Esys relocated its computer assembly plant from China to Singapore.
  8. Esys was awarded a Business Headquarters award by the Economic Development Board.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CHS CPO GmbH and Another v Vikas Goel and Others, Suit 636/2004, SIC 4265/2005, 4324/2005, 4325/2005, 4340/2005, [2006] SGHC 49

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs obtained Mareva injunction order and Anton Piller order ex parte.
Anton Piller order executed between 2 to 4 August 2004.
Defendants filed applications to set aside the Mareva injunction order and the Anton Piller order.
Defendants filed applications to set aside the Mareva injunction order and the Anton Piller order.
Hearing to discharge the Mareva injunction order and the Anton Piller order.
Hearing to discharge the Mareva injunction order and the Anton Piller order.
Hearing of further arguments.
Decision date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Discharge of Anton Piller Order
    • Outcome: The court declined to set aside the Anton Piller order.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Discharge of Mareva Injunction
    • Outcome: The court set aside the Mareva injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-disclosure of material facts
      • Real risk of dissipation of assets
  3. Non-disclosure of Material Facts
    • Outcome: The court found that there was non-disclosure of material facts.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Real Risk of Dissipation of Assets
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no real risk of dissipation of assets.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Mareva injunction
  2. Anton Piller order
  3. Account of profits
  4. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraud
  • Conspiracy to defraud
  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions

11. Industries

  • Computer Components Distribution

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CHS CPO GmbH v Vikas GoelHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR 202SingaporeSets out the background and dispute between the parties.
Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities LtdN/AYes[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 428N/ACited for the duty of disclosure of a party applying ex parte for injunctive relief.
Choy Chee Keen Collin v Public Utilities BoardN/AYes[1997] 1 SLR 604SingaporeCited regarding proprietary claim and real risk of dissipation of assets.
Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (No 2)N/AYes[1992] 4 All ER 769N/ACited with approval regarding equitable tracing and proprietary claims.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Impact Pacific Consultants Pte LtdN/AYes[2005] 4 SLR 61SingaporeCited as an example of an order to defer the inquiry into and assessment of damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva injunction
  • Anton Piller order
  • Dissipation of assets
  • Non-disclosure
  • Ex parte application
  • Constructive trustee
  • Business Headquarters award
  • Economic Development Board

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva injunction
  • Anton Piller order
  • Fraud
  • Asset dissipation
  • Non-disclosure
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Injunctions70
Fraud and Deceit60
Misrepresentation50
Commercial Disputes40
Company Law30
Evidence Law30
Contract Law30
Breach of Confidence25
Fiduciary Duties20
Duty to Account20
Estoppel15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Fraud