Mukherjee v Biswas: Bankruptcy Proceedings & Duty to Obtain Sanction of Official Assignee

In Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Gouri Mukherjee v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas, the High Court of Singapore addressed multiple appeals and applications arising from bankruptcy proceedings initiated against Mr. Biswas. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan JC, dismissed applications to stay or dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings, emphasizing the bankrupt's duty to obtain sanction from the Official Assignee before continuing legal actions. The court found Mr. Biswas's repeated attempts to relitigate issues already decided by the courts to be an abuse of process.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

SUM 2247, SUM 268, RA 343, RA 344, and RA 348 dismissed. No order as to RA 131 as it is moot.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed appeals against a bankruptcy order, emphasizing the bankrupt's duty to obtain sanction from the Official Assignee.

1.7 Decision Date

14 September 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Official Assignee	Official Assignee	Government Agency	Neutral	Neutral
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas	Defendant, Appellant, Claimant	Individual	Appeals and applications dismissed	Lost	Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers
Sabyasachi Mukherjee	Plaintiff, Respondent	Individual	Successful in opposing the appeals and applications	Won	See Chern Yang of Drew & Napier LLC Joshua Quek Wen Chieh of Drew & Napier LLC Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa of Drew & Napier LLC
Gouri Mukherjee	Plaintiff, Respondent	Individual	Successful in opposing the appeals and applications	Won	See Chern Yang of Drew & Napier LLC Joshua Quek Wen Chieh of Drew & Napier LLC Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa of Drew & Napier LLC
Barclays Bank PLC	Respondent	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Ang Guo Qiang of WongPartnership LLP Chan Daniel of WongPartnership LLP Yu Zheng Yi Victoria of WongPartnership LLP
Bank of Singapore Limited	Respondent	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Lim Jie Hao Sampson of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tham Hsu Hsien of Allen & Gledhill LLP Abigail Anousha Fernandez of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Goh Yihan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Tean	Carson Law Chambers
See Chern Yang	Drew & Napier LLC
Joshua Quek Wen Chieh	Drew & Napier LLC
Cheng Hiu Lam Larisa	Drew & Napier LLC
Ang Guo Qiang	WongPartnership LLP
Chan Daniel	WongPartnership LLP
Yu Zheng Yi Victoria	WongPartnership LLP
Lim Jie Hao Sampson	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tham Hsu Hsien	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Abigail Anousha Fernandez	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Sabyasachi and Gouri Mukherjee sued Pradeepto Biswas to recover funds invested based on his advice.
Ang J granted judgment in S 1270 for US$3.45m against Biswas for breach of fiduciary duties.
Biswas appealed, but the appeal was struck out for breach of an unless order.
Biswas did not satisfy the judgment, leading to the issuance of a statutory demand.
Biswas applied to set aside the statutory demand, but the application was dismissed.
Bankruptcy proceedings were filed against Biswas.
Biswas applied for pre-action discovery against the Mukherjees and other parties.

5. Formal Citations

Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another matter, Bankruptcy No 2425 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 343, 344, and 348 of 2022, No 131 of 2023, and Summons No 268 of 2023) and Originating Application No 152 of 2022 (Summons No 2247 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 262

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-01-23	Period for interest calculation on investment capital began
2018-12-11	Judgment granted in S 1270
2019-07-01	Statutory demand issued in respect of the Judgment debt
2021-08-02	Application filed in OSB 74 to set aside the statutory demand
2021-09-16	OSB 74 dismissed
2021-10-07	Liberty to file bankruptcy proceedings granted after this date
2021-10-08	Bankruptcy proceedings filed against the appellant
2022-05-25	OA 152 filed
2023-08-28	Hearing before Goh Yihan JC
2023-09-15	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Duty to Obtain Sanction of Official Assignee
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was required to obtain the PTIB's previous sanction to continue with OA 152.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Incompetence to continue action without sanction
  - Exceptions to sanction requirement
Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the Ladd v Marshall requirements were not met.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Non-availability of evidence
  - Influence on the result of the case
  - Credibility of evidence
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was precluded by the doctrine of issue estoppel from relitigating issues that had been previously considered and dismissed by the courts.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Relitigation of issues
  - Abuse of process

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Pre-action Discovery
Stay of Bankruptcy Proceedings
Dismissal of Bankruptcy Application

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Deceit

10. Practice Areas

Bankruptcy
Civil Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 271	Singapore	Original judgment on which the statutory demand was based; found that the appellant breached his fiduciary duties.
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 79	Singapore	Appeal against the Judgment was struck out due to the appellant’s breach of an unless order.
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 340	Singapore	Application for a re-trial of S 1270 was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, merit, and abuse of process.
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Gouri Mukherjee and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1347	Singapore	Applications for permission to appeal and recuse a judge were dismissed due to lack of merit.
Standard Chartered Bank v Loh Chong Yong Thomas	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 569	Singapore	Interpreted the requirement of previous sanction under s 131(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, holding that it means prior sanction and not retrospective sanction.
Ladd v Marshall	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Established the threefold requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal.
Toh Eng Lan v Foong Fook Yue and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 833	Singapore	Confirmed the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements in Singapore.
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 499	Singapore	Confirmed the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements in Singapore.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 341	Singapore	Set out a two-step analysis for adducing fresh evidence on appeal, considering the nature of the proceedings below.
Re Mohamed Yunos Valibhoy	High Court	Yes	[1991] SGHC 91	Singapore	Addressed the meaning of 'action' in the context of the Bankruptcy Act, but was later superseded.
Ho Yu Tat Edward v Chen Kok Siang Joseph and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1357	Singapore	Applied Thomas Loh and held that a bankrupt must obtain the Official Assignee’s prior sanction even for claims that do not vest in the Official Assignee.
CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 665	Singapore	Addressed the doctrine of issue estoppel.
Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tian Jian Hua Xia Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd) (in judicial management) and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 884	Singapore	Addressed the doctrine of issue estoppel.
Mohd Zain bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 446	Singapore	Addressed the standard for justifying a stay of bankruptcy proceedings.
Seto Wei Meng (suing as the administrator of the estate and on behalf of the dependants of Yeong Soek Mun, deceased) and another v Foo Chee Boon Edward	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHCR 5	Singapore	Addressed the standard for justifying a stay of bankruptcy proceedings where there is a judgment debt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018	Singapore
s 401 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bankruptcy
Statutory Demand
Official Assignee
Sanction
Issue Estoppel
Fiduciary Duty
Pre-action Discovery
Abuse of Process
Insolvency
Judgment Debt
Pacatolus Fund

15.2 Keywords

Bankruptcy
Insolvency
Singapore
Court
Judgment
Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bankruptcy	90
Insolvency Law	80
Res Judicata	70
Civil Procedure	60
Civil Litigation	50
Estoppel	40
Jurisdiction	30

16. Subjects

Insolvency
Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure