EFA RET Management v. Dinesh Pandey: Bankruptcy - Statutory Demand & Bankruptcy Order Dispute

In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Assistant Registrar Randeep Singh Koonar heard the case between EFA RET Management Pte Ltd (as Trustee of EFA Real Economy Income Trust) and Dinesh Pandey regarding a statutory demand and subsequent bankruptcy order. Pandey applied to set aside the statutory demand, but the court dismissed the application, finding no genuine triable issues in respect of the debt. Consequently, the court made a bankruptcy order against Pandey. The court also ordered Pandey to pay EFA's costs. Pandey has appealed against the decisions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons dismissed; bankruptcy order granted.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on statutory demand and bankruptcy order. The court dismissed the debtor's application, finding no genuine triable issues and made a bankruptcy order.

1.7 Decision Date

9 March 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
EFA RET Management Pte Ltd (as Trustee of EFA Real Economy Income Trust)	Plaintiff, Respondent	Corporation	Originating Summons dismissed; bankruptcy order granted	Won	Ramandeep Kaur of Black Stone & Gold LLC Baldev Bhinder of Black Stone & Gold LLC
Dinesh Pandey	Defendant, Plaintiff	Individual	Application Dismissed; Bankruptcy Order Granted	Lost	Subashini d/o Narayanasamy of Haridass Ho & Partners Shawn Tien Si Yuan of Haridass Ho & Partners Sharmini Yogarajah of Haridass Ho & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Randeep Singh Koonar	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ramandeep Kaur	Black Stone & Gold LLC
Baldev Bhinder	Black Stone & Gold LLC
Subashini d/o Narayanasamy	Haridass Ho & Partners
Shawn Tien Si Yuan	Haridass Ho & Partners
Sharmini Yogarajah	Haridass Ho & Partners

4. Facts

EFA agreed to lend US$20m to Anant International (HK) Limited and other borrowers under the Original Facility Agreement.
Mr Pandey and Somap International Pte Ltd were the guarantors under the Original Facility Agreement.
The Borrowers and the Guarantors defaulted on repayments under the Original Facility Agreement.
EFA issued a statutory demand to Mr Pandey demanding repayment of sums due under the Original Facility Agreement.
EFA, the Borrowers, and the Guarantors entered the Amended Facility Agreement.
The Obligors defaulted on the Amended Facility Agreement.
EFA issued a statutory demand to Mr Pandey demanding payment of sums due under the Amended Facility Agreement.

5. Formal Citations

EFA RET Management Pte Ltd (as Trustee of EFA Real Economy Income Trust) v Dinesh Pandey and another matter, Bankruptcy No 1010 of 2021 and Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 109 of 2021, [2022] SGHCR 3

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-03-18	Original Facility Agreement signed.
2019-05-06	Loan Sum disbursed into Anant’s account.
2020-03-03	EFA wrote to Borrowers and Guarantors regarding default.
2020-03-18	EFA issued a letter of demand to Borrowers and Guarantors.
2020-04-10	EFA issued a statutory demand to Mr Pandey.
2020-04-27	Mr Pandey filed Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 48 of 2020.
2020-06-12	First Amended Agreement to the Original Facility Agreement signed.
2020-07-22	OSB 48 was withdrawn by consent.
2020-10-15	EFA’s solicitors wrote to Mr Pandey regarding default of Amended Facility Agreement.
2020-10-21	EFA’s solicitors issued a statutory demand to Mr Pandey.
2020-11-02	EFA received payment of US$100,000.
2020-11-11	EFA received payment of US$100,000.
2020-11-20	Mr Pandey was remanded in prison in India.
2020-12-18	EFA made an ex parte application to the English High Court for a world-wide freezing injunction.
2020-12-21	The WWFO was granted.
2020-12-21	EFA commenced a civil action in the English High Court against the Obligors.
2021-01-12	EFA issued a further statutory demand.
2021-04-27	EFA commenced B 1010 against Mr Pandey.
2021-04-28	Mr Pandey filed Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 46 of 2021.
2021-06-10	Mr Pandey filed Summons No 2695 of 2021.
2021-09-03	Mr Pandey was released on bail.
2021-09-10	A consent order was entered in OSB 46.
2021-10-11	Mr Pandey filed Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 91 of 2021.
2021-10-12	SUM 2695 was dismissed by an assistant registrar.
2021-10-26	Mr Pandey was granted an extension of time to file the setting aside application.
2021-12-31	OSB 109 was filed.
2022-01-18	Mr Pandey’s appeal against the assistant registrar’s decision was dismissed by a High Court judge.
2022-02-15	OSB 109 came up for hearing before the Assistant Registrar, together with B 1010.
2022-02-15	Court dismissed OSB 109 and made an order-in-terms of B 1010.
2022-03-10	Grounds of decision.

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside Statutory Demand
- Outcome: The court found that the debtor had not demonstrated the existence of genuine triable issues and dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Genuine triable issue
  - Substantial dispute of debt
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 2 SLR 446
  - [2013] 2 SLR 801
Duress
- Outcome: The court found that the Amended Facility Agreement was not signed under duress.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 2 SLR 232
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 240
Breach of Mortgagee Obligations
- Outcome: The court found that the allegation of an undervalue sale of a vessel was irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
- Category: Substantive
Penalty (Default Interest)
- Outcome: The court found that the default interest payable under the Facility Agreements was not a penalty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR(R) 755
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that EFA did not breach the Original Facility Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that Mr Pandey failed to establish any abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Bankruptcy Order
Recovery of Debt

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

Bankruptcy
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mohd Zain Bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 446	Singapore	Cited for the principle that summary judgment principles apply in determining whether a statutory demand ought to be set aside on the ground that the debt is disputed.
Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jalalludin bin Abdullah and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Court retains a residual discretion to set aside a statutory demand even if it is satisfied that there are no triable issues.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners)	Unknown	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 232	Singapore	Cited for the elements required to prove duress.
Tam Tak Chuen v Khairul bin Abdul Rahman and others	Unknown	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 240	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a threat of lawful action could amount to illegitimate pressure where the threat is not made bona fide and/or where the demand is unreasonable.
Hong Leong Finance Ltd v Tan Gin Huay and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 755	Singapore	Cited for the law on the enforceability of default interest clauses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Personal Insolvency Rules 2020	Singapore
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Statutory Demand
Bankruptcy Order
Facility Agreement
Guarantor
Debtor
Loan Sum
Default Interest
Duress
Abuse of Process

15.2 Keywords

bankruptcy
statutory demand
insolvency
debt
singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bankruptcy	95
Insolvency Law	95
Contract Law	60
Civil Procedure	50

16. Subjects

Bankruptcy
Insolvency
Debt Recovery