Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v East India Capital Management: Employment Contract Dispute and Fiduciary Duty Breach

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Pradeepto Kumar Biswas sued East India Capital Management Pte Ltd (EICM) for unpaid salary. EICM counterclaimed against Pradeepto for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duties. The court ruled in favor of Pradeepto, allowing his claim for deferred salary and dismissing EICM's counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for deferred salary is allowed. EICM’s counterclaim is dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and East India Capital Management concerning unpaid salary and breach of fiduciary duties. The court ruled in favor of Biswas.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pradeepto Kumar BiswasPlaintiff, Defendant-in-CounterclaimIndividualClaim for deferred salary allowedWon
Indian Ocean Group Pte LtdDefendant-in-CounterclaimCorporationNo specific outcome mentionedNeutral
East India Capital Management Pte LtdDefendant, Plaintiff-in-CounterclaimCorporationCounterclaim dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Pradeepto claimed he was an employee of EICM, seeking unpaid salary.
  2. EICM claimed Pradeepto was a partner and shareholder, not an employee.
  3. Pradeepto and Hopkins discussed the formation of EICM.
  4. IOG purchased 24% shares in EICM.
  5. EICM terminated Pradeepto’s engagement citing misconduct.
  6. EICM counterclaimed for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duties.
  7. Pradeepto's salary was deferred until EICM became profitable.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v East India Capital Management Pte Ltd, Suit No 705 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 183

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Discussions regarding the formation of EICM began.
Discussions regarding the formation of EICM continued.
Hopkins sent an email to Gary Thornton regarding Pradeepto's salary.
East India Capital Management Pte Ltd was incorporated.
Pradeepto commenced work with EICM.
Agreement that Pradeepto would be paid a notional monthly salary of $20,000 when EICM became profitable.
IOG purchased 24% shares in EICM from Hopkins.
Pradeepto agreed to have his salary reduced to $10,000.
EICM terminated Pradeepto’s engagement.
Pradeepto's solicitors referred to him as having joined EICM as a partner in their letter.
Suit 705 of 2017 commenced by Pradeepto against EICM for unpaid salary.
Hearing commenced.
Hearing continued.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Pradeepto was entitled to his deferred salary.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court dismissed EICM's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty due to lack of evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that EICM did not rely on Pradeepto's alleged misrepresentations when entering into the agreement.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages (Unpaid Salary)

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Investment Management

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Deferred Salary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Misrepresentation
  • Employment
  • Shareholder
  • Notional Salary

15.2 Keywords

  • Employment Contract
  • Unpaid Salary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Misrepresentation
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Employment Law
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Fiduciary Duty