Biswas v Mukherjees: Recusal Application and Appeal for Extension of Time
In Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Gouri Mukherjee and Sabyasachi Mukherjee, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Mr. Biswas's application for Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong to recuse himself based on alleged bias and his application for permission to appeal against the Appellate Division's decision to deny him an extension of time to appeal. The court found no merit in Biswas's claims, deeming the recusal application unsubstantiated and the appeal an abuse of process. The Mukherjees were awarded costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Both the recusal application and the application for permission to appeal were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Biswas's recusal application and appeal for an extension of time, finding no merit in his claims of bias and abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Gouri Mukherjee | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | See Chern Yang, Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa |
| Sabyasachi Mukherjee | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | See Chern Yang, Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| See Chern Yang | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The Mukherjees sued Mr. Biswas for breaching fiduciary duties.
- Mr. Biswas was found liable to pay US$3.45m to the Mukherjees.
- Mr. Biswas's appeal against the decision was struck out.
- Mr. Biswas challenged the statutory demand, alleging perjury by the Mukherjees.
- The Appellate Division dismissed Mr. Biswas's application for permission to appeal.
- Mr. Biswas applied for Justice Phang JCA to recuse himself based on alleged bias.
- Mr. Biswas sought an extension of time to file an appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Gouri Mukherjee and another, , [2022] SGCA 63
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mukherjees sued Mr. Biswas in HC/S 1270/2014 for breach of fiduciary duties. | |
| Ang J issued judgment in Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another suit [2018] SGHC 271, allowing the Mukherjees' claim. | |
| Mr. Biswas's appeal CA/CA 2/2019 was struck out by the court. | |
| Mukherjees served a statutory demand on Mr. Biswas. | |
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy J dismissed RA 260, agreeing with the AR that there were no grounds to set aside the Statutory Demand. | |
| Mr. Biswas filed a summons before the High Court. | |
| Deadline for Mr. Biswas to apply for permission to appeal. | |
| Mr. Biswas was informed that he had to make an application to the appellate court. | |
| Mr. Biswas filed OS 53. | |
| Appellate Division dismissed OS 53 in its entirety. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Apparent Bias
- Outcome: The court found no apparent bias, holding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and did not approach the standard required for a finding of apparent bias.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Multiple adverse rulings
- Intemperate language
- Judicial error
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1156
- [2017] 3 SLR 725
- [2018] SGHC 92
- [2021] SGHC 96
- [2022] SGHC(A) 10
- Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome: The court denied the extension of time, finding that an appeal would be hopeless and that there was no good explanation for the delay.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Hopelessness of appeal
- Lack of good explanation for delay
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the application was an abuse of process due to the baseless allegation of perjury and the multiple, successive proceedings commenced to resist enforcement efforts.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Manifestly groundless allegations
- Multiple successive proceedings
- Improper vexation or oppression
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
- [2021] 2 SLR 354
8. Remedies Sought
- Recusal of Judge
- Permission to Appeal
- Extension of Time to File Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duties
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of bias should be rare and made with circumspection, and that unmeritorious allegations will elicit serious consequences. |
| TOW v TOV | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that judges often hear multiple parts of a single case and may be required to make multiple adverse rulings against a single litigant. |
| Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that judges often hear multiple parts of a single case and may be required to make multiple adverse rulings against a single litigant. |
| Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party alleging an adverse ruling was made erroneously should normally bring an appeal, not a recusal application. |
| Png Hock Leng v AXA Insurance Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that bare allegations do not suffice to make out a case of apparent bias. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of an unless order may lead to an action or appeal being struck out where the breach was intentional and contumelious, and that the court should be guided by considerations of proportionality in assessing the appropriate sanction. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining whether an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted, the court examines whether an appeal against that decision would be hopeless or devoid of merit. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining whether an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted, the court examines whether an appeal against that decision would be hopeless or devoid of merit. |
| UJM v UJL | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 117 | Singapore | Cited for the 'Threshold Merits Requirement' and 'Discretionary Appropriateness Requirement' in applications for permission to appeal. |
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 31 | Singapore | Cited for the obiter statement that the TKQP Letter did not reveal any perjury by the Mukherjees. The court distinguished this case. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings commenced in every division of the Supreme Court within a short period, are likely to cause improper vexation or oppression and thus amount to an abuse of process. |
| Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings commenced in every division of the Supreme Court within a short period, are likely to cause improper vexation or oppression and thus amount to an abuse of process. |
| Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 271 | Singapore | Trial Judgment |
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 79 | Singapore | Striking Out Judgment |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Apparent Bias
- Recusal
- Extension of Time
- Abuse of Process
- Perjury
- Unless Order
- Statutory Demand
- Judgment Debt
15.2 Keywords
- recusal
- appeal
- bias
- Singapore
- court of appeal
- fiduciary duty
- abuse of process
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Appeals
- Recusal
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Courts And Jurisdiction
- Appeals
- Judges
- Recusal