Ram Niranjan v Navin Jatia: Costs Allocation in Breach of Contract & Minority Oppression Suit

In Ram Niranjan v Navin Jatia, the High Court of Singapore issued supplemental grounds of decision on June 7, 2019, regarding the allocation of costs in Suit 911 of 2016 and Suit 139 of 2017. The court addressed appeals related to the initial costs orders, specifically concerning claims for handwriting expert fees and reimbursement of hearing fees. The court upheld its decision to award only partial costs to Ram Niranjan and Mrs. Ram, citing their failure to prove a substantial number of their claims and allegations, including those related to the 2015 Deed, contractual license, and minority oppression.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Costs orders made, with reductions due to failure to prove substantial claims and allegations.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Supplemental Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Supplemental judgment on costs allocation in a case involving breach of contract, minority oppression, and property rights. The court details the costs awarded to each party.

1.7 Decision Date

6 June 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Navin Jatia	Defendant, Plaintiff	Individual	Ordered to Pay Costs	Lost	Letchamanan Devadason of Legal Standard LLP Chong Jia Hao of Legal Standard LLP Mahtani Bhagwandas of Legal Standard LLP
Samridhi Jatia	Defendant	Individual	Ordered to Pay Costs	Lost	Letchamanan Devadason of Legal Standard LLP Chong Jia Hao of Legal Standard LLP Mahtani Bhagwandas of Legal Standard LLP
Evergreen Global Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Letchamanan Devadason of Legal Standard LLP Chong Jia Hao of Legal Standard LLP Mahtani Bhagwandas of Legal Standard LLP
Ram Niranjan	Plaintiff, Defendant	Individual	Partial Costs Awarded	Partial	Tan Teng Muan of Mallal & Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal & Namazie
Shakuntala Devi	Defendant	Individual	Partial Costs Awarded	Partial	Sarbjit Singh Chopra of Selvam LLC Ho May Kim of Selvam LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Letchamanan Devadason	Legal Standard LLP
Chong Jia Hao	Legal Standard LLP
Mahtani Bhagwandas	Legal Standard LLP
Tan Teng Muan	Mallal & Namazie
Loh Li Qin	Mallal & Namazie
Sarbjit Singh Chopra	Selvam LLC
Ho May Kim	Selvam LLC

4. Facts

Ram and Mrs Ram sought to set aside the 2015 Deed on multiple grounds, succeeding only on the ground of material non-disclosure.
Ram and Mrs Ram proved the MOU was legally binding and they had a contractual license to reside at the Poole Road property.
Ram and Mrs Ram failed to prove the contractual license was irrevocable.
Ram failed to prove allegations that transfers and allotments of shares were carried out without his knowledge and consent.
Mrs Ram failed to set aside the SPA on grounds of economic duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation and non est factum.
Ram's allegations that his signatures had been forged were spurious.

5. Formal Citations

Ram Niranjan v Navin Jatia and others and another suit, Suit Nos 911 of 2016 & 139 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 145

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-07-13	Trial began
2018-07-17	Trial continued
2018-07-19	Trial continued
2018-07-20	Trial continued
2018-07-24	Trial continued
2018-07-30	Trial continued
2018-07-31	Trial continued
2018-08-01	Trial continued
2018-08-02	Trial continued
2018-08-03	Trial continued
2018-08-07	Trial continued
2018-08-10	Trial continued
2018-08-15	Trial continued
2018-08-16	Trial continued
2018-08-17	Trial continued
2018-08-20	Trial continued
2018-08-28	Trial continued
2018-08-29	Trial continued
2018-08-30	Trial continued
2018-08-31	Trial continued
2018-09-06	Trial continued
2018-09-07	Trial continued
2018-09-20	Trial continued
2018-10-01	Trial continued
2019-06-07	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Allocation of Costs
- Outcome: Costs orders made, with reductions due to failure to prove substantial claims and allegations.
- Category: Procedural
Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: Succeeded in proving material non-disclosure as a ground to set aside the 2015 Deed.
- Category: Substantive
Breach of Implied Term
- Outcome: Court found that Ram had breached the Implied Term.
- Category: Substantive
Minority Oppression
- Outcome: Ram succeeded in his minority oppression claim but failed to prove many of the allegations made in support of the claim.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ram Niranjan v Navin Jatia and others and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 138	Singapore	Refers to the main grounds of decision to which this judgment is supplemental.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Costs
Disbursements
Material Non-Disclosure
Minority Oppression
Contractual Licence
Implied Term
2015 Deed
Hearing Fees
Transcription Fees
Handwriting Expert

15.2 Keywords

costs
singapore
high court
contract
minority oppression
allocation
judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	90
Civil Practice	70
Evidence Law	40
Minority Oppression	30
Contract Law	30
Company Law	20
Unconscionability	20
Commercial Disputes	20
Misrepresentation	20
Undue Influence	20
Knowing Receipt	10
Non est factum	10
Limitation	10
Estoppel	10
Fraud and Deceit	10
Fiduciary Duties	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Company Law
Costs