Vasanthan v Ravishankar: Skantek Debt, Contract Formation & Moneylending
In Metupalle Vasanthan and another v Loganathan Ravishankar and another, the Singapore High Court addressed claims related to the assignment of a debt (Skantek debt), contract formation, and allegations of unlicensed moneylending. The first plaintiff, Metupalle Vasanthan, sought to recover US$3,050,000 based on an assignment from the second plaintiff, Laszlo Karoly Kadar, against the first defendant, Loganathan Ravishankar. Mr. Logan counterclaimed against Dr. Vas for US$739,624.60 for failure to transfer MyDoc shares under the Logan Trust Deed and against Mr. Laszlo for US$950,000 for breach of a compromise agreement. The court found that the Skantek debt had been compromised and that Mr. Logan's counterclaim against Dr. Vas was valid in part. The court gave judgment to Mr. Logan against Dr. Vas in the sum of US$388,281.22 and dismissed all other claims and counterclaims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant, Loganathan Ravishankar, against the first plaintiff, Metupalle Vasanthan, in the amount of US$388,281.22. All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving a Skantek debt assignment, contract compromise, and allegations of unlicensed moneylending. Judgment for defendant on counterclaim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loganathan Ravishankar | Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Won | |
| Metupalle Vasanthan | Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim | Individual | Judgment against | Lost | |
| Laszlo Karoly Kadar | Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Gunaratnam Sakunthar Raj | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Logan agreed to purchase Skantek from Mr. Laszlo for US$4,000,000.
- Mr. Logan claimed Mr. Laszlo misrepresented the value of Skantek.
- Mr. Logan lent US$350,000 to Clarity Radiology Pte Ltd.
- Dr. Vas signed a letter guaranteeing repayment of the Clarity debt.
- Dr. Vas and Mr. Logan executed a trust deed regarding MyDoc shares.
- Dr. Vas emailed Mr. Logan claiming to have assigned the Skantek debt.
- Dr. Vas agreed to shelve his claim regarding the Skantek debt.
5. Formal Citations
- Metupalle Vasanthan and another v Loganathan Ravishankar and another, Suit No 1180 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 238
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Laszlo married Ms. Devika. | |
| Mr. Logan agreed to purchase Skantek from Mr. Laszlo under an oral contract. | |
| Trust terminated, Mr. Logan became legal owner of Skantek shares. | |
| Central Chambers Law Corporation letter acknowledging Skantek debt issued. | |
| Telephone conversation between Mr. Laszlo and Mr. Tan regarding Skantek debt. | |
| Loan agreement between Mr. Logan and Clarity Radiology Pte Ltd for US$350,000. | |
| Dr. Vas signed a letter guaranteeing repayment of the Clarity debt. | |
| Dr. Vas signed the guarantee. | |
| Dr. Vas and Mr. Logan executed the Logan Trust Deed. | |
| Dr. Vas emailed Mr. Logan regarding using MyDoc shares to pay Mr. Laszlo. | |
| Meeting between Dr. Vas, Mr. Logan, Mr. Reza, and Mr. Shervin. | |
| Dr. Vas emailed Mr. Logan agreeing to shelve the claim. | |
| Mr. Logan requested Dr. Vas to transfer MyDoc shares via WhatsApp. | |
| Mr. Logan requested Dr. Vas to transfer MyDoc shares via WhatsApp. | |
| Mr. Logan issued a statutory demand on Dr. Vas. | |
| Statutory demand served on Dr. Vas. | |
| Deed of assignment created (backdated to January 14, 2018). | |
| Mr. Laszlo refers to being happy to sign the formal Assignment document. | |
| Dr. Vas executed another trust deed. | |
| Claritas Healthtech Pte Ltd set up. | |
| Notes of Evidence. | |
| Notes of Evidence. | |
| Notes of Evidence. | |
| Notes of Evidence. | |
| Defendants’ Closing Submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found Dr. Vas liable for breach of contract for failure to transfer the MyDoc shares, but only to the extent of US$388,281.22.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to transfer MyDoc shares
- Breach of compromise agreement
- Compromise Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that a valid compromise agreement existed between Mr. Laszlo and Mr. Logan, precluding Mr. Laszlo from claiming the Skantek debt.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Laszlo made misrepresentations to Mr. Logan regarding the ICE Group's deals, but no damages were assessed.
- Category: Substantive
- Assignment of Debt
- Outcome: The court found that while an equitable assignment occurred, the Skantek debt had already been compromised. The court also found that the requirements for a legal assignment were not met.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Legal assignment
- Equitable assignment
- Notice of assignment
- Moneylending
- Outcome: The court found that the Moneylenders Act did not apply because the loan was a legitimate commercial transaction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unlicensed moneylending
- Presumption of moneylending
- Estoppel by Convention
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Laszlo was estopped from claiming the Skantek debt due to estoppel by convention.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Transfer of MyDoc Shares
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Debt Recovery
11. Industries
- Information Technology
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1893] 1 QB 256 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an offeror can indicate that they do not require notice of acceptance other than performance of the condition. |
| New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [1975] AC 154 | United Kingdom | Cited with approval of Bowen LJ's passage in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, regarding an offer that ripens into a contract upon performance. |
| Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 195 | Singapore | Cited for the minimum requirements of estoppel by convention. |
| SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 651 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that labelling one's email address with one's name was considered sufficient for the purpose of s 6(d) of the Civil Law Act. |
| Joseph Mathew and another v Singh Chiranjeev and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for approval of Prakash J's views in SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) Ltd. |
| Sutherland, Hugh David Brodie v Official Assignee and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 752 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an assignment of a present chose in action does not require consideration. |
| Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the liability of a guarantor must be co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. |
| Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1972] 2 WLR 1175 | Unknown | Cited for Lord Diplock’s dictum that the debtor’s liability to the creditor is also the measure of the guarantor’s. |
| Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the statutory framework of the Moneylenders Act. |
| Donald McArthy Trading Pte Ltd and others v Pankaj s/o Dhirajlal (trading as TopBottom Impex) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 321 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the provisions of the Moneylenders Act are not intended to apply to transactions made at arm’s length between commercial entities. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners) | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it has never been the objective of the Moneylenders Act to prohibit or impede legitimate commercial dealings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 2011 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Skantek debt
- Clarity debt
- Logan Trust Deed
- MyDoc shares
- Compromise agreement
- Guarantee
- Moneylenders Act
- Estoppel by convention
- Assignment
- ICE Group
- Central Chambers Letter
- Central Chambers Attendance Note
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- debt
- assignment
- compromise
- moneylending
- estoppel
- guarantee
- shares
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Money and moneylenders | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Guarantee | 70 |
| Illegal moneylending | 70 |
| Estoppel | 60 |
| Estoppel by Convention | 60 |
| Equitable Assignment | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 50 |
| Agency Law | 40 |
| Waiver | 40 |
| Unilateral Offer | 40 |
| Banking Law | 30 |
| Banking and Finance | 30 |
| Equity | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Debt
- Moneylending
- Assignment
- Estoppel