Biswas v Mukherjee: Retrial Application Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction & Abuse of Process

Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and Indian Ocean Group Pte Ltd (IOGPL) applied for a retrial in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore, concerning a breach of fiduciary duty claim and a loan recovery claim, respectively, against Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Gouri Mukherjee. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Steven Chong JCA, and Quentin Loh JAD, dismissed the applications, finding a lack of jurisdiction, absence of merit, and abuse of process. The court ordered indemnity costs of SGD 20,000 to be awarded to the Mukherjees.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summonses Nos 24 and 25 dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for retrial dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process. The court found no grounds for a retrial.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pradeepto Kumar BiswasApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Sabyasachi MukherjeeRespondentIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Gouri MukherjeeRespondentIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Indian Ocean Group Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Quentin LohJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim TeanCarson Law Chambers
See Chern YangDrew & Napier LLC
Cheng Hiu Lam LarisaDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Biswas was the Mukherjees’ investment advisor.
  2. The Mukherjees invested US$4.5m in various products through Mr. Biswas.
  3. The Mukherjees alleged Mr. Biswas used funds meant for investments for his own purposes.
  4. The Judge found Mr. Biswas liable for breach of fiduciary duty.
  5. IOGPL claimed US$1.6m was a loan to Mrs. Mukherjee; she refuted this.
  6. The Judge dismissed IOGPL’s claim, finding the US$1.6m was the Mukherjees’ funds.
  7. Mr. Biswas and IOGPL filed applications for retrials alleging perjury and a miscarriage of justice.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter, Originating Summons No 24 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 31
  2. Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter, Originating Summons No 25 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
IOEL made two remittances to the Mukherjees’ UOB account, amounting to US$1.6m.
The Mukherjees brought S 1270 against Mr Biswas.
IOGPL brought S 417 against Mrs Mukherjee to recover an alleged loan made in 2012 through an entity known as “IOEL”.
Trial for both suits heard before the Judge.
Trial for both suits heard before the Judge.
Closing submissions were made.
The Judge delivered a single written judgment.
CA 3 was deemed withdrawn.
TKQP Letter was issued.
CA 2 was struck out.
OS 24 was filed.
OS 25 was filed.
OS 53 was filed.
The New Suit was filed.
Mr Biswas filed an affidavit in OS 25 that alleged that his lawyers in S 417, M/s Niru & Co (“Niru”), had not disclosed certain evidence at trial.
D&N filed written submissions for both OS 24 and OS 25 on behalf of the Mukherjees.
Carson filed written submissions for OS 24, but not OS 25.
OS 62 was dismissed by the Appellate Division of the High Court (“the AD”).
The court orally dismissed OS 24 and OS 25.
Grounds of Decision were delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applications as there were no pending appeals.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
      • Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the applications were an abuse of process due to the pending New Suit and the failure to raise issues in prior proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Improper invocation of court processes
      • Delaying enforcement of judgment debt
      • Breach of the rule in Henderson
  3. Retrial
    • Outcome: The court found that the threshold for a retrial had not been met as the alleged new evidence did not have an important influence on the outcome of the case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Discovery of fresh evidence
      • Miscarriage of justice
      • Admissibility of evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Retrial
  2. Reversal of Judgment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Recovery of Loan

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appellate Practice

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] SGCA 79SingaporeCited for striking out CA 2 due to Mr Biswas’s breach of an unless order.
Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another suitHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 271SingaporeThe original judgment where the Judge allowed the Mukherjees’ claims in S 1270 but dismissed IOGPL’s claim in S 417.
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 357SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has no original civil jurisdiction.
Naseer Ahmad Akhtar v Suresh Agarwal and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1032SingaporeCited for the principle of incidental appellate jurisdiction.
Muhd Munir v Noor HidahCourt of AppealYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 348SingaporeCited for the definitions of jurisdiction and powers of a court.
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue ChewCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 673SingaporeCited for ordering a retrial in the context of a civil appeal.
Susilawati v American Express Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 737SingaporeCited for the principles on ordering a retrial and the application of Ladd v Marshall.
Ladd v MarshallEnglish Court of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the test for admitting fresh evidence in a retrial application.
SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and othersCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 118SingaporeCited for the principle that establishing grounds for a retrial does not necessarily warrant one if the result was correct in any event.
Henderson v HendersonEnglish Court of ChanceryYes(1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313England and WalesCited for the extended doctrine of res judicata.
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and anotherSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle of the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 103SingaporeCited for the categories of objectionable conduct warranting indemnity costs.
Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1198SingaporeCited for the principle that allegations should not be made lightly.
Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for cautioning against filing ill-conceived applications.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 584SingaporeCited for cautioning against filing ill-conceived applications.
Mah Kiat Seng v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 79SingaporeCited for cautioning against filing ill-conceived applications.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
r 29 of the Professional Conduct (Legal Profession) Rules 2015

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 60A of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
s 53 of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
s 49 of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
s 53(2)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
s 58(2) of the SCJASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Retrial
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Abuse of Process
  • Jurisdiction
  • Miscarriage of Justice
  • Fresh Evidence
  • Locus Standi
  • Perjury
  • Henderson v Henderson
  • Indemnity Costs

15.2 Keywords

  • Retrial
  • Jurisdiction
  • Abuse of Process
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Abuse of Process90
Civil Procedure80
Civil Practice75
Appeal60
Fiduciary Duties40
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law30
Costs30
Arbitration25
Asset Recovery25
Corporate Litigation20
Corporate Law20
Commercial Litigation20
Commercial Law20
Company Law20
Business Litigation20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction
  • Abuse of Process
  • Retrial