Parikh v Sakraney: Interpretation of Contractual Terms for Payment of Fees
In Ameet Nalin Parikh v Ishan Anoop Sakraney, the High Court of Singapore addressed an originating summons regarding the interpretation of a clause in a Letter of Engagement concerning the payment of fees. The plaintiff, Ameet Nalin Parikh, sought a declaration that he was entitled to further payments beyond 30 September 2019 for services rendered to the defendant, Ishan Anoop Sakraney, related to the sale of assets held by certain companies. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that he is entitled to fees for services rendered during the period between 14 June 2013 and 30 September 2017, pursuant to Clause 4.2 of the Agreement, to be paid immediately upon the defendant’s and/or Shorai’s receipt of any monies and/or proceeds as set out in Clause 4.2.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed the interpretation of a contract clause regarding payment of fees for services related to the sale of assets.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ishan Anoop Sakraney | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ameet Nalin Parikh | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff provided business consultancy services to individuals and corporations.
- The defendant engaged the plaintiff to perform services related to the sale of assets held by certain companies.
- The parties entered into a Letter of Engagement dated 14 June 2013, which was later amended by an Addendum dated 1 April 2017.
- Clause 4.2 of the Letter of Engagement, as amended, governs the plaintiff’s entitlement to fees.
- The plaintiff sought a declaration that he is entitled to further payments beyond 30 September 2019, pursuant to Clause 4.2.
- The services had been performed by the plaintiff and that the defendant had paid the plaintiff fees up till 30 September 2019.
5. Formal Citations
- Ameet Nalin Parikh v Ishan Anoop Sakraney, Originating Summons No 1281 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 56
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of Engagement signed | |
| Addendum to Letter of Engagement signed | |
| Monies in respect of the Sale were received by the various Watanmal Group companies | |
| Plaintiff's term of appointment ended | |
| Tail period ended | |
| Originating Summons No 1281 of 2020 filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court interpreted Clause 4.2 of the Letter of Engagement in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff is entitled to payment at the rates provided for in Clause 4.2, upon the defendant receiving the monies from the Companies.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory Judgment
- Ancillary Disclosure Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 386 | Singapore | Cited for principles of contractual interpretation. |
| Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd v HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1069 | Singapore | Cited for the starting point of contractual interpretation. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the court's regard to the relevant context in contractual interpretation. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the court's position to ascertain the parties’ objective intentions in contractual interpretation. |
| Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 219 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning ascribed to the terms of the contract in contractual interpretation. |
| Standard Chartered Bank v Neocorp International Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 345 | Singapore | Cited for the cautious approach to prior contracts in contractual interpretation. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited for the need of sufficient gravity for the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction. |
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
- Letter of Engagement
- Addendum
- Clause 4.2
- Value realized
- Value received
- Tail period
- Sale proceeds
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- interpretation
- fees
- payment
- business consultancy
- sale of assets
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Contractual terms | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Ancillary disclosure order | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contractual Interpretation
- Business Consultancy Services