Super Group Ltd v Mysore Nagaraja Kartik: Breach of Contract, Electronic Records & Limitation
In Super Group Ltd v Mysore Nagaraja Kartik, the Singapore High Court addressed a breach of contract claim. Super Group sued Mysore Nagaraja Kartik for failing to honor an agreement to settle a debt of Master Beverage Industries Russia Pte Ltd (MBIR). The court found that Kartik signed the agreement but failed to pay US$600,000 and transfer a Russian property. The court entered interlocutory judgment against Kartik for US$600,000 and ordered an assessment of damages for the failure to transfer the property. The court also held that the action was not time-barred due to Kartik's acknowledgment of the debt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant for US$600,000 and an assessment of damages ordered for failure to transfer Russian property.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on breach of contract, electronic evidence, and limitation period in Super Group Ltd v Mysore Nagaraja Kartik.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Super Group Ltd (formerly known as Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Bryan Ghows, Ahmad Firdaus Daud |
| Mysore Nagaraja Kartik | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | Edmond Pereira, Goh Chui Ling |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bryan Ghows | Taylor Vinters Via LLC |
| Ahmad Firdaus Daud | Taylor Vinters Via LLC |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
| Goh Chui Ling | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- MBIR owed the plaintiff approximately US$1.3m.
- The defendant allegedly signed an agreement to settle MBIR's debt by paying US$600,000 and transferring a Russian property.
- The defendant issued five post-dated cheques totaling US$600,000, but all were dishonored.
- The defendant took steps to transfer Promfinaktiv to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff commenced action against the defendant in March 2015.
- The defendant denied signing the agreement and claimed the action was time-barred.
5. Formal Citations
- Super Group Ltd v Mysore Nagaraja Kartik, Suit No 273 of 2015, [2018] SGHC 192
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff agreed to supply coffee products to MBIR. | |
| Plaintiff entered into the supply contract. | |
| Plaintiff supplied coffee products to MBIR. | |
| Meeting between MBIR and the plaintiff to resolve claims. | |
| Parties met and the defendant undertook to transfer Promfinaktiv and pay US$600,000. | |
| Mr. Lee sent an email to the defendant enclosing a document recording the agreement reached on 2 April 2008. | |
| Defendant issued five post-dated cheques bearing various dates in May 2008. | |
| Mr. Lee sent an email to the defendant regarding the agreement dated 2/04/2008. | |
| Mr. Lee emailed the defendant a 2007 valuation of the Russian property. | |
| Plaintiff commenced action against MBIR to recover US$1.39m. | |
| Plaintiff secured a judgment in default against MBIR. | |
| Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant to recover US$1.3m. | |
| MBIR was wound up by the court. | |
| MBIR was struck off the companies register. | |
| Trial on liability alone. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay US$600,000 and transfer the Russian property.
- Category: Substantive
- Forgery
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant failed to prove that his signature on the agreement was a forgery.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 774
- Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court held that the action was not time-barred because the defendant acknowledged the debt within the limitation period.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
- Outcome: The court found the emails to be authentic and admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 338
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Damages for breach of contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yogambikai Nagarajah v Indian Overseas Bank and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 774 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the burden of proving forgery is on the party alleging it. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in civil cases, even when fraud is alleged, is proof on the balance of probabilities. |
| In re H and other (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 563 | England and Wales | Cited to examine the interaction between the seriousness of an allegation in a civil case and the standard of proof resting on the party making the allegation. |
| Telemedia Pacific Group Ltd v Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA (Yeh Mao-Yuan, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for the legislative purpose of s 116A(1) of the Evidence Act is to facilitate the use of electronic records as forensic evidence. |
| Fairview Developments Pte Ltd v Ong & Ong Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 318 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an acknowledgment need only admit that a debt remains due and it is not necessary for the acknowledgment to state the amount that is due as long as the amount can be ascertained by reference to extrinsic evidence. |
| Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise Maria and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an acknowledgment does not have to be direct or explicit as long as it is a “sufficiently clear admission”. |
| Good v Parry | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1963] 2 All ER 59 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an acknowledgement must contain an admission that a debt of an ascertainable quantum exists. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, Rev Ed 1996) s 6(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, Rev Ed 1996) s 26(2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, Rev Ed 1997) s 116A(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Acknowledgement
- Forgery
- Limitation Act
- Electronic records
- Email authentication
- Promfinaktiv
- MBIR
- Post-dated cheques
15.2 Keywords
- Breach of contract
- Electronic evidence
- Limitation period
- Forgery
- Singapore High Court
- Commercial litigation
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Limitation of Actions
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Limitation of Actions