Sinniah Karupaiah v Kumanaruban Rasiah: Oral Loan Agreements & Inter Vivos Gifts Dispute
In Sinniah Karupaiah v Kumanaruban Rasiah, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over three alleged oral loan agreements totaling S$294,053.50. Sinniah Karupaiah, the plaintiff, claimed that he lent these sums to Kumanaruban Rasiah, the defendant. The defendant argued that one sum was a gift and the other two were capital injections into Univen (S) Pte Ltd. The court found that one of the sums was a loan, and the other two were capital injections, allowing the plaintiff's claim in part. The defendant was ordered to repay the sum of S$100,000 with interest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Sinniah Karupaiah and Kumanaruban Rasiah concerning alleged oral loan agreements. The court found one sum to be a loan and two sums to be capital injections.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sinniah Karupaiah | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar |
| Kumanaruban Rasiah | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed in part | Lost | Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh, Tay Yu E |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar | Pathway Law Practice LLP |
| Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh | Sanders Law LLC |
| Tay Yu E | Sanders Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed he lent S$294,053.50 to defendant under three oral loan agreements.
- Defendant claimed S$100,000 was a gift and other sums were capital injections into Univen.
- S$100,000 was transferred to Thangavelu LLC, defendant's former solicitor, for legal proceedings.
- Plaintiff signed a cash cheque of S$100,000 on behalf of Wang Lai.
- Plaintiff transferred S$100,000 from his personal account to Wang Lai's account.
- Plaintiff issued a cash cheque for S$62,677.50.
- Plaintiff issued a cheque in his own name to the defendant for S$131,376.
5. Formal Citations
- Sinniah Karupaiah v Kumanaruban Rasiah, Suit No 410 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff and defendant introduced to each other. | |
| Plaintiff appointed a director of Boeki Auto & Marine Pte Ltd. | |
| Plaintiff allegedly granted S$50,000 loan to defendant. | |
| Defendant went to Batam. | |
| Defendant's wedding. | |
| Defendant returned to Singapore from Batam. | |
| Univen (S) Pte Ltd incorporated. | |
| Defendant invited plaintiff and his wife to child's baptism. | |
| S$100,000 transferred to Thangavelu LLC. | |
| Western Union document for payment to Vinafood. | |
| Plaintiff issued a cash cheque for S$62,677.50. | |
| Defendant cashed out cheque and deposited S$62,677.00 into Univen’s UOB bank account. | |
| Plaintiff allegedly granted S$84,000 loan to defendant. | |
| Plaintiff issued a cheque for S$131,376 to the defendant. | |
| Multiple payments made from Univen's bank account. | |
| Writ filed. | |
| Plaintiff's and Defendant's Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief dated. | |
| Nikhil Singh’s Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief dated. | |
| Court Order for Summons No 3367 of 2020. | |
| Court Order of 17 August 2020 for Summons No 3367 of 2020. | |
| Defendant’s Closing Submissions dated. | |
| Plaintiff’s Revised Closing Submissions dated. | |
| Plaintiff’s Reply Submissions filed. | |
| Defendant’s Reply Submissions dated. | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) dated. | |
| Defendant’s Further Reply Submissions dated. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Formation of Oral Loan Agreements
- Outcome: The court found that an oral loan agreement was concluded for one of the sums.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to create legal relations
- Consideration
- Inter Vivos Gift
- Outcome: The court found that one of the sums was not a gift.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to gift
- Acceptance of gift
- Proper Plaintiff Rule
- Outcome: The court found that the proper plaintiff rule was not applicable on the facts.
- Category: Procedural
- Doctrine of Privity of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the doctrine of privity of contract was not applicable on the facts.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn, concerning the need to put evidence to a witness during cross-examination. |
| Foss v Harbottle | N/A | Yes | (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189 | N/A | Cited regarding the proper plaintiff rule. |
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
- Oral loan agreement
- Inter vivos gift
- Capital injection
- Univen (S) Pte Ltd
- Wang Lai Construction Engineering Pte Ltd
- Thangavelu LLC
15.2 Keywords
- loan
- gift
- contract
- singapore
- high court
- oral agreement
- capital injection
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Loan Agreements
- Gifts
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Gifts
- Inter vivos