Suresh Agarwal v Naseer Ahmad Akhtar: Striking Out Application in Originating Summons
Suresh Agarwal appealed against the High Court's decision to strike out his application (SUM 1757) within Originating Summons No 624 of 2017. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JA and Quentin Loh J, dismissed the appeal on 13 September 2019, issuing grounds of decision on 14 October 2019. The court disagreed with some of the High Court's reasoning but upheld the striking out of the application. The underlying dispute involved a minority oppression action and a disagreement over a settlement agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against striking out of application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, disagreeing with some grounds of the lower court's decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suresh Agarwal | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Naseer Ahmad Akhtar | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Teck Randolph | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Vanessa Chiam Hui Ting | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant held 34.7% and respondent held 64.3% of the shares in Infotech Global Pte Ltd.
- Appellant commenced a minority oppression action against the respondent in 2015.
- The minority oppression action was discontinued on 30 May 2017.
- Respondent claimed the discontinuance was pursuant to a settlement agreement.
- Appellant sought judgment against the respondent for $10,359,120 in Summons No 1757 of 2018.
- The Judge dismissed OS 624, stating parties could bring claims within S 631 against each other.
- The Judge struck out Summons No 1757 of 2018.
5. Formal Citations
- Suresh Agarwal v Naseer Ahmad Akhtar, Civil Appeal No 58 of 2019, [2019] SGCA 55
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Minority oppression action commenced in High Court Suit No 631 of 2015 | |
| Discussions began to settle High Court Suit No 631 of 2015 | |
| Action in High Court Suit No 631 of 2015 was discontinued | |
| Respondent took out Originating Summons No 624 of 2017 | |
| Appellant took out Summons No 1757 of 2018 in Originating Summons No 624 of 2017 | |
| Judge ruled in Originating Summons No 624 of 2017 that the respondent had failed to prove a conclusive agreement | |
| Judge struck out Summons No 1757 of 2018 | |
| Appeal was heard and dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Application
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the application, but disagreed with some of the lower court's reasoning.
- Category: Procedural
- Counterclaim in Originating Summons
- Outcome: The court held that a counterclaim can be brought in an originating summons even if it goes beyond the scope of the original claim.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Inquiry as to sums due and payable
9. Cause of Actions
- Minority Oppression
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 366 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that final reliefs could only be sought by way of an originating process and not through an interlocutory application. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 912 | Singapore | Cited for the test in determining whether an order is an interlocutory or a final one. |
| Drolia Mineral Industries Pte Ltd v Natural Resources Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 880 | Singapore | Cited for the two stage test involving, first, a balancing of the considerations of procedural convenience in favour of and against the disposal of the counterclaim by a separate action, and second, a consideration of what the overall justice of the case demanded. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 28 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 28 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 28 Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 15 Rule 2(1) |
| Order 15 Rule 5(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking Out
- Originating Summons
- Minority Oppression
- Counterclaim
- Settlement Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- Striking Out
- Originating Summons
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Counterclaim
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Striking out | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Minority Oppression | 60 |
| Company Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Counterclaims