Pandey v Bothra: Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim Post-Summary Judgment

In Nimisha Pandey and Deepak Mishra v Divya Bothra, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the defendant against the decision to grant summary judgment for the first claimant for the balance purchase price of a property. The defendant also applied to amend her Defence and Counterclaim and to adduce further evidence. The court allowed the amendment in part, permitting the defendant to plead a time bar defence and a Standard Chartered Bank Facility defence, but disallowed amendments related to a 'Running Account' defence. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed. The appeal hearing was deferred.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

SUM 3265 allowed in part and SUM 3266 dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding summary judgment for balance purchase price. Court allowed amendment of defence in part, dismissing application to adduce further evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nimisha PandeyClaimant, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualSUM 3265 allowed in partPartial
Deepak MishraClaimant, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualSUM 3265 allowed in partPartial
Divya BothraDefendant, Claimant in Counterclaim, AppellantIndividualSUM 3265 allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash PillaiCLASIS LLC
Koh JunxiangCLASIS LLC
Ng Pi WeiCLASIS LLC
Vikram NairRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Foo Xian FongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Liew Min Yi GlennaRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. First claimant sought balance purchase price of property.
  2. Defendant initially claimed full payment was made.
  3. Defendant later claimed overpayment for the property.
  4. Defendant then sought to introduce a 'Running Account' defence.
  5. Defendant applied to amend Defence and Counterclaim post-judgment.
  6. Defendant also applied to adduce further evidence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nimisha Pandey and another v Divya Bothra, Originating Claim No 138 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 196 of 2023, Summonses Nos 3265 and 3266 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 332

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sales and Purchase Agreement entered into
Title to the Property was transferred to the defendant
Option to Purchase executed
First claimant lodged a caveat against the Property
Defendant filed an application to cancel the Caveat
Claim commenced for the Balance Purchase Price
Date of completion of sale
First claimant filed HC/OA 203/2023
Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) dated
Defendant’s Reply Affidavit in OA 203 dated
Rajesh Bothra’s Reply Affidavit in OA 203 dated
Court ordered that the balance sale proceeds be paid into court
Defendant amended the DCC 1
Decision on SUM 3265 and SUM 3266
Defendant sought permission to make further arguments
Defendant to file her amended Defence and Counterclaim

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim
    • Outcome: The court allowed the defendant to amend the DCC 2 to include the Time Bar Defence and the SCB Facility Defence, but disallowed the amendments to include the Running Account Defence and the Estoppel Defence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Introduction of new defences post-judgment
      • Good faith of the applying party
      • Materiality of proposed amendments
      • Prejudice to the other party
  2. Admissibility of Further Evidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant’s application to adduce further evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable diligence in obtaining evidence
      • Probable influence on the result of the case
      • Credibility of the evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim
  2. Adducing Further Evidence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wang Piao v Lee Wee ChingHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 216SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to amendments to a defence in the face of a summary judgment.
Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 268SingaporeCited for the principle that amendments should be granted sparingly to preserve finality.
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another applicationCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 710SingaporeCited to distinguish the present case, as the defendant in that case had maintained the same defence before the AR.
Bajaj Textiles Ltd v Gian Singh & Co LtdSingapore Federal CourtYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 40SingaporeCited for the principle that the amount due on a running account is a cause of action known to the common law.
In re Footman Bower & Co LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1961] 2 All ER 161EnglandCited for the nature of the debtor’s liability in a current account.
Mitfam International Ltd v Motley Resources Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1253SingaporeCited for the possibility of a running account defence.
Ladd v MarshallEnglish Court of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489EnglandCited for the threefold requirements governing the admissibility of new evidence.
Toh Eng Lan v Foong Fook Yue and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 833SingaporeCited for the threefold requirements governing the admissibility of new evidence.
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 499SingaporeCited for the threefold requirements governing the admissibility of new evidence.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)Court of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited for the two-step analysis that a court should adopt in dealing with an application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Balance Purchase Price
  • Running Account
  • Summary Judgment
  • Amendment of Pleadings
  • Estoppel Defence
  • Time Bar Defence
  • SCB Facility Defence

15.2 Keywords

  • amendment
  • defence
  • counterclaim
  • summary judgment
  • running account
  • balance purchase price
  • caveat

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Amendments85
Summary Judgment80
Civil Practice75
Civil Litigation70
Running Account65
Contract Law60
Estoppel55
Property Law50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate Law