Asia Silk Stores v Lata Ashok Khemlani: Bankruptcy Appeal over DJ Hira Enterprise Debt

Asia Silk Stores appealed a decision to set aside a statutory demand against Lata Ashok Khemlani, the sole proprietor of DJ Hira Enterprise, for a debt of $49,933.15. The High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, allowed the appeal, finding Khemlani liable for the debt incurred by DJ Hira Enterprise, despite her claims that her husband managed the business and incurred the debt without her knowledge. The court gave the defendant 21 days to comply with the statutory demand.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a statutory demand for a debt owed by DJ Hira Enterprise. The court allowed the appeal, finding the defendant liable for the debt.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Asia Silk StoresPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Lata Ashok Khemlani (trading as DJ Hira Enterprise)Defendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff sold textiles to DJ Hira Enterprise.
  2. The defendant is the registered sole proprietor of DJ Hira Enterprise.
  3. A trading debt of $49,933.15 was due by DJ Hira to the plaintiff.
  4. The plaintiff served a statutory demand on the defendant on 14 October 2018.
  5. The defendant claimed her husband carried out the transactions without her knowledge.
  6. The husband acknowledged the debt but claimed it was incurred without the defendant's knowledge.
  7. The invoices and goods were sent to DJ Hira, and payments were made by cheques from DJ Hira's account.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Asia Silk Stores v Lata Ashok Khemlani (trading as DJ Hira Enterprise), HC/Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 110 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 112

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Personal protection order taken out by the defendant
Statutory demand served on the defendant
Defendant's affidavit sworn
Husband's affidavit filed
Appeal allowed
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court held that the statutory demand should not have been set aside.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Bankruptcy Order
  2. Payment of Debt

9. Cause of Actions

  • Debt Claim
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Textiles

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rule 97(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act (Bankruptcy Rules, Cap 20, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory Demand
  • Sole Proprietor
  • Trading Debt
  • DJ Hira Enterprise

15.2 Keywords

  • Bankruptcy
  • Statutory Demand
  • Debt
  • Singapore
  • Textiles

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Insolvency Law95
Bankruptcy90
Statutory Demand90

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency