Transasia Private Capital Ltd v Todi Ashish: Summary Judgment on Guarantee for Trade Finance Facility Default
In the case of Transasia Private Capital Ltd v Todi Ashish, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore granted summary judgment on the merits in favour of the plaintiff, Transasia Private Capital Ltd, against the defendant, Todi Ashish. The claim arose from a personal guarantee provided by Todi Ashish for Canwell Commerce Pte Ltd's obligations under a trade finance facility. Canwell defaulted on the loans, and Todi Ashish, as guarantor, was sued for the outstanding amount. The court considered the claim on its merits, noting that the defendant did not enter an appearance, and found that the plaintiff had proven its claim. The court awarded the plaintiff the principal sum, interest, and costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Summary judgment on the merits in favour of the plaintiff.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Summary judgment granted to Transasia against Todi Ashish, guarantor of Canwell's trade finance facility, due to Canwell's loan default.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transasia Private Capital Ltd (in its capacity as manager, for and on behalf of Asian Trade Finance Fund, a sub-fund of TA Asian Multi-Finance Fund) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Todi Ashish | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Janice Han Jia Lin | Tan Peng Chin LLC |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff is an asset management firm acting as the manager of a fund.
- Canwell Commerce Pte Ltd was a customer of the plaintiff and maintained an account with the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff granted a revolving trade finance facility to Canwell.
- The defendant was a director and shareholder of Canwell.
- The defendant signed a personal guarantee guaranteeing Canwell’s obligations to the plaintiff.
- Canwell drew down three loans under the facility agreement.
- Canwell failed to repay the plaintiff the loans drawn down under the facility agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Transasia Private Capital Ltd (in its capacity as manager, for and on behalf of Asian Trade Finance Fund, a sub-fund of TA Asian Multi-Finance Fund) v Todi Ashish, Suit No 909 of 2020 (Summons No 531 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 39
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loan of US$3,571,664.22 drawn down by Canwell. | |
| Loan of US$1,005,077.47 drawn down by Canwell. | |
| Loan of US$1,989,826.08 drawn down by Canwell. | |
| Plaintiff demanded repayment from Canwell. | |
| Plaintiff demanded repayment from Canwell. | |
| Plaintiff demanded repayment from Canwell and payment from the defendant as guarantor. | |
| Plaintiff made a statutory demand against the defendant. | |
| Plaintiff sued the defendant for US$7,744,971.79. | |
| Plaintiff granted leave to serve writ and statement of claim out of jurisdiction. | |
| Court allowed plaintiff to effect substituted service. | |
| Substituted service effected on the defendant. | |
| Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff. |
7. Legal Issues
- Summary Judgment on Guarantee
- Outcome: The court granted summary judgment on the merits in favour of the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Enforceability of Guarantee
- Outcome: The court found the guarantee enforceable against the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Court's Power to Consider Claim on Merits
- Outcome: The court affirmed its inherent power to consider a claim on the merits even in the absence of the defendant.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v APM Infotech Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 147 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may consider a claim on the merits instead of entering judgment in default of appearance. |
| Indian Overseas Bank v Svil Agro Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may consider a claim on the merits instead of entering judgment in default of appearance. |
| Seagate Technology International v Vikas Goel | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 12 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may consider a claim on the merits instead of entering judgment in default of appearance. |
| Panwell Investments Pte Ltd v Lau Ee Theow | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can consider a claim on the merits instead of entering judgment in default of defence. |
| Berliner Bank AG v Karageorgis and another | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426 | England | Cited for the principle that the court can enter judgment on the merits instead of default judgment. |
| Habib Bank Ltd v Central Bank of Sudan (formerly known as Bank of Sudan) | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 WLR 470 | England | Cited for the principle that the court can enter judgment on the merits instead of default judgment. |
| Trafigura Pte Ltd and another v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation | N/A | Yes | [2010] EWHC 87 (Comm) | England | Cited for the principle that the court can enter judgment on the merits instead of default judgment. |
| Govidan Asari Kesavan Asari v Sankaran Asari Balakrishanan Asari | N/A | Yes | AIR 1958 Ker 203 | India | Cited for the principle that where the defendant is absent, the plaintiff may adduce evidence in respect of his claim, and the court may give a decision on the merits of the case after due consideration of the evidence. |
| International Woollen Mills v Standard Wool (UK) Ltd | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [2001] 2 LRI 765 | India | Cited for the principle that where the defendant is absent, the plaintiff may adduce evidence in respect of his claim, and the court may give a decision on the merits of the case after due consideration of the evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Code of Civil Procedure (Act No 5 of 1908) (India), s 13 | India |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 13 r 1(1) read with O 12 r 4(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Personal Guarantee
- Trade Finance Facility
- Summary Judgment
- Default
- Revolving Credit
- Facility Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- Guarantee
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Finance
- Default
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Summary Judgement | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Guarantee | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Banking and Finance | 50 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
| Asset Management | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Finance Law