Seagate Technology International v Vikas Goel: Enforcement of Guarantee and Indemnity

In the High Court of Singapore, Seagate Technology International sued Vikas Goel to enforce a personal guarantee for approximately US$14.1 million. The guarantee was related to a Final Settlement Agreement where eSys Technologies Pte Ltd (now Haruki Solutions Pte Ltd) owed Seagate money. Vikas Goel did not enter an appearance. The court, after hearing evidence, found Vikas Goel liable under the guarantee and granted judgment in favor of Seagate. The court also granted an injunction against Vikas Goel from making any claim against the Company.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Seagate Technology International sues Vikas Goel to enforce a guarantee. The court grants judgment for Seagate, finding Goel liable under the guarantee for US$14.1m.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Seagate Technology InternationalPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Vikas GoelDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Edmund LeowJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Seagate and eSys entered into a Final Settlement Agreement.
  2. eSys issued a promissory note to Seagate for US$15 million.
  3. Vikas Goel issued a personal guarantee for eSys's obligations.
  4. eSys failed to pay the outstanding balance of US$14,148,856.32.
  5. Seagate demanded payment from Vikas Goel under the guarantee.
  6. Vikas Goel failed to make the payment.
  7. Vikas Goel submitted a proof of debt in the liquidation proceedings of eSys.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Seagate Technology International v Vikas Goel, Suit No 1041 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Final Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release signed
eSys Singapore issued Promissory Note to Seagate Technology International
Parent Company entered into Corporate Guarantee
Defendant entered into Personal Guarantee
Monthly payments began
Monthly payments ended
Defendant submitted proof of debt in liquidation proceedings of the Company
Company failed to make payment of Principal Balance
Plaintiff demanded repayment of Principal Balance
Plaintiff exercised rights under Corporate Guarantee
Plaintiff exercised rights under Personal Guarantee
Writ of summons and statement of claim served on the defendant
Tan Lee Meng J granted order for full trial
Hearing
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Guarantee
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant was liable under the personal guarantee to repay the principal balance and interest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 892
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached clause 6.3.2 of the Personal Guarantee.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Guarantee
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Indian Overseas Bank v Svil Agro Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 892SingaporeCited for the principle that a guarantor's liability arises automatically once a borrower has defaulted on payment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 13 r 1 of the Rules of Court
O 35 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Personal Guarantee
  • Final Settlement Agreement
  • Promissory Note
  • Principal Balance
  • Notice of Acceleration
  • Corporate Guarantee

15.2 Keywords

  • guarantee
  • indemnity
  • settlement agreement
  • promissory note
  • default judgment

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Guarantees
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure