Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee: Appeal Struck Out for Non-Compliance with Rules of Court

In the Court of Appeal of Singapore, Pradeepto Kumar Biswas appealed against Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Gouri Mukherjee. The court struck out Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019 due to Biswas's failure to comply with an unless order to rectify deficiencies in his record of appeal and core bundle, serve relevant documents, and tender them to the Registry by a specified deadline. The court found Biswas's non-compliance contumelious and not a mere technical breach, leading to delays and wasted costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019 struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal struck out due to appellant's failure to comply with court orders and Rules of Court regarding filing of appeal documents, causing delays.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pradeepto Kumar BiswasRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal Struck OutLost
Sabyasachi MukherjeeApplicants, RespondentsIndividualAppeal Struck OutWon
Gouri MukherjeeApplicants, RespondentsIndividualAppeal Struck OutWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealYes
Tay Yong KwangJudge of AppealNo
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Ka Luon EddeeTan Kok Quan Partnership
Muk Chen Yeen JonathanTan Kok Quan Partnership
Chan Yi ZhangTan Kok Quan Partnership
Toh Zhen Teck JeremyTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was required to file his Case, record of appeal, core bundle, and bundle of authorities by 12 April 2019.
  2. The appellant requested an extension of time to file his Case, which was not formally granted.
  3. The respondents stated that the appellant’s form of record of appeal and form of core bundle were in contravention of the requirements of the ROC.
  4. The appellant was to take out an application to remedy his non-compliance by 10 May 2019, but did not file any application by that date.
  5. The court directed that the appellant was to file an application to rectify the defects in the record of appeal and his core bundle by 7 June 2019.
  6. The appellant was granted leave to refile the record of appeal and core bundle by 10 July 2019.
  7. The respondents filed Court of Appeal Summons No 91 of 2019 seeking to strike out CA/CA 2/2019 due to the appellant's failure to comply with filing requirements.
  8. The appellant was administered an Unless Order to rectify deficiencies by 30 September 2019.
  9. The appellant filed and served the relevant documents on 1 October 2019, one day after the deadline.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another, , [2019] SGCA 79
  2. , Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019, Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Registry served notice that record of proceedings was available.
Appellant requested an extension of time to file his Case.
Appellant filed his Case, form of record of appeal, and form of core bundle.
Respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant’s form of record of appeal and form of core bundle were in contravention of the requirements of the ROC.
Case management conference held.
Respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant had failed to file an application to remedy his non-compliance with the ROC by 10 May 2019.
Appellant replied saying that he had filed a revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle, and a bundle of authorities on 10 May 2019, but that the revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle were rejected as he did not have leave to file them.
Respondents communicated their disagreement to the extension of time requested by the appellant.
Court directed appellant to file application to rectify defects in record of appeal and core bundle by 7 June 2019.
Case management conference held.
Appellant filed Court of Appeal Summons No 66 of 2019 seeking leave to refile the form of record of appeal and form of core bundle.
Appellant filed a revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle.
Respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant remained in non-compliance with the ROC.
Respondents were directed to file such application as they deemed appropriate by 31 July 2019.
Third case management conference held.
Respondents filed Court of Appeal Summons No 91 of 2019 seeking to strike out CA/CA 2/2019.
Unless Order administered to the appellant.
Appellant tendered appeal documents to the Registry and attempted to serve documents on respondents.
Appellant filed forms of the record of appeal and his core bundle and served the relevant documents on the respondents.
Respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant had failed to comply with the Unless Order.
Hearing held to decide whether Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019 should be struck out for breach of the Unless Order.
Court ordered that CA/CA 2/2019 be struck out.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Non-compliance with Rules of Court
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the Rules of Court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to file appeal documents
      • Failure to rectify deficiencies in appeal documents
      • Failure to serve documents on time
  2. Breach of Unless Order
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant breached the Unless Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to meet deadline
      • Failure to rectify deficiencies
  3. Enforcement of Unless Order
    • Outcome: The court enforced the Unless Order, striking out the appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Contumelious conduct
      • Proportionality

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal
  2. Striking out of Appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 1179SingaporeCited for the principle that a breach of an unless order will automatically trigger its specified adverse consequences, with the onus on the defaulting party to demonstrate that the breach was not intentional and contumelious.
BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 83SingaporeCited for the principle that while courts may show some greater indulgence to litigants in person, such indulgence is not to be expected as a matter of entitlement.
Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City CouncilN/AYes[1997] 1 WLR 1666N/ACited regarding the importance of enforcing unless orders to maintain the administration of justice and address procedural inefficiencies caused by delay and wasted costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 57 rr 9 and 9A of the Rules of Court
O 62 r 6(1)(a)–(c) of the ROC
O 62 r 6(1)(d) of the ROC
O 62 r 6(1)(e) of the ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unless Order
  • Rules of Court
  • Non-compliance
  • Record of Appeal
  • Core Bundle
  • Contumelious Conduct
  • Service of Documents

15.2 Keywords

  • Appeal
  • Rules of Court
  • Unless Order
  • Non-compliance
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice90
Judgments and Orders85
Striking out80
Enforcement of Order80
Non-compliance70
Summary Judgement60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Compliance with Court Orders