Indian Bank v Green Mint Pte Ltd: Illegality & Public Policy in Loan Contracts Procured by Bribery

In Indian Bank v Green Mint Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed whether a borrower and its guarantors could resist a loan recovery and guarantee enforcement, respectively, on the grounds of illegality due to alleged bribery of the bank's officers. The bank sued Green Mint Pte Ltd, Gupta Vaibhav, and Arvind Sharma for defaulting on a loan. Philip Jeyaretnam J allowed the bank's appeal, granting judgment for the bank, holding that the bribery allegations did not constitute a valid defense against the loan recovery or guarantee enforcement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed and judgment given to the bank.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case regarding a loan obtained through bribery. The court ruled that the borrower cannot resist recovery of the loan based on illegality.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Indian BankPlaintiff, Defendant in counterclaimCorporationAppeal AllowedWonNamazie Mirza Mohamed, Tay Jing En
Green Mint Pte LtdDefendant, Plaintiff in counterclaimCorporationClaim DismissedLostSatwant Singh s/o Sarban Singh
Gupta VaibhavDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLostSatwant Singh s/o Sarban Singh
Arvind SharmaDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Namazie Mirza MohamedMallal & Namazie
Tay Jing EnMallal & Namazie
Satwant Singh s/o Sarban SinghSatwant & Associates

4. Facts

  1. Indian Bank granted banking and trading facilities to Green Mint Pte Ltd.
  2. The facilities were secured by a pledge of US$1,100,000 held in a fixed deposit account.
  3. The facilities were renewed and varied by a letter of offer issued on 7 December 2020.
  4. The second and third defendants gave a joint and several guarantee to the bank.
  5. Green Mint Pte Ltd defaulted on the payment of sums outstanding to the bank.
  6. The bank uplifted the fixed deposit by way of partial set-off and satisfaction of what was outstanding.
  7. The defendants alleged that they obtained the loan by bribing the bank’s officers.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Indian Bank v Green Mint Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 349 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 285 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 265

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Bank granted banking and trading facilities to the borrower via letter of offer.
Facilities were renewed and varied by a letter of offer.
Borrower accepted renewed facilities.
Guarantors signed the joint and several personal guarantee.
Bank's solicitor issued notices demanding payment to the borrower and the guarantors.
Bank issued fresh notices of demand for US$546,920.78.
Bank issued a writ.
First and second defendants filed a defence and counterclaim, while the third defendant filed a defence.
First and second defendants provided particulars.
Third defendant provided particulars.
Third defendant provided particulars.
Bank filed an application for summary judgment and to strike out the borrower’s counterclaim.
Assistant Registrar granted unconditional leave to defend and struck out the borrower’s counterclaim.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Illegality of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the borrower could not resist recovery of the loan on the ground of illegality.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 609
      • [2018] 1 SLR 363
  2. Enforcement of Guarantee
    • Outcome: The court held that the guarantor could not resist enforcement of the guarantee on the ground of illegality.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Enforcement of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the doctrine of illegality.
Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 363SingaporeCited for the doctrine of illegality.
Panama and South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works CoCourt of ChanceryYes(1875) LR 10 Ch App 515England and WalesCited for the principle that an innocent party has the option to avoid a contract procured by a bribe.
Aquila Advisory Ltd v Faichney and others (Crown Prosecution Service intervening)UK Supreme CourtYes[2021] 1 WLR 5666United KingdomCited for the principle that the unlawful acts and dishonest state of mind of directors could not be attributed to the company in civil proceedings against those directors.
Honeywell International Middle East Ltd v Meydan Group LLC (formerly known as Meydan LLC)High Court of JusticeYes[2014] EWHC 1344 (TCC)England and WalesCited to show that there is no English public policy requiring a court to refuse to enforce a contract procured by bribery.
National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd and anotherHigh Court of JusticeYes[2016] EWHC 510 (Comm)England and WalesCited to show that there is no English public policy requiring a court to refuse to enforce a contract procured by bribery.

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

  • Illegality
  • Public Policy
  • Bribery
  • Loan
  • Guarantee
  • Summary Judgment
  • Triable Issue
  • Fixed Deposit
  • Letter of Offer
  • Banking Facilities

15.2 Keywords

  • Contract
  • Illegality
  • Bribery
  • Loan
  • Guarantee
  • Singapore
  • Banking

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Banking Law
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Credit And Security
  • Banking Law
  • Illegality and Public Policy