Jhaveri v Salgaocar: Application to Dismiss Suit Based on Prior Judgment

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and P.D. Holdings Limited were plaintiffs in two suits against Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar, as administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar, and Million Dragon Wealth Limited and Winter Meadow Capital Inc, respectively. The defendants applied to the General Division of the High Court to have the suits dismissed based on a prior judgment in HC/S 821/2015, arguing that the plaintiffs' causes of action had merged into that judgment. Justice Goh Yihan dismissed the applications, finding no basis to deem the suits dismissed as of 17 April 2024.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to dismiss suits based on a prior judgment was dismissed. The court found no basis to deem the suits dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Darsan Jitendra JhaveriPlaintiffIndividualApplications dismissedNeutral
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar, deceased)DefendantIndividualApplications dismissedNeutral
Million Dragon Wealth LimitedDefendantCorporationApplications dismissedNeutral
P.D. Holdings LimitedPlaintiffCorporationApplications dismissedNeutral
Winter Meadow Capital IncDefendantCorporationApplications dismissedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eva Teh Jing HuiK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Narayanan Sreenivasan SCSreenivasan Chambers LLC
Rajaram Muralli RajaK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Tan Si Xin AdorabelleK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Kanapathi Pillai NirumalanNiru & Co LLC
Liew Teck HuatNiru & Co LLC
Phang CunkuangNiru & Co LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Salgaocar commenced Suit 821 against Mr. Darsan in 2015.
  2. Mr. Salgaocar passed away, and his estate continued the action.
  3. Mr. Darsan commenced actions in the BVI to claim ownership of shares.
  4. Mr. Darsan discontinued the BVI actions after an anti-suit injunction.
  5. Mr. Darsan commenced the Suits, making similar claims to the BVI actions.
  6. The parties entered into Consent Orders to stay the Suits pending the outcome of Suit 821.
  7. The General Division ruled in favor of the Estate in Suit 821.
  8. Mr. Darsan's appeal was largely dismissed.
  9. The defendants applied to have the Suits dismissed based on the prior judgment and consent orders.
  10. Mr. Darsan amended his Statement of Claims in the Suits.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar, Suit No 278 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 276
  2. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar, Suit No 279 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 276

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit 821 commenced by Mr. Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar against Mr. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri.
Mr. Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar passed away.
Mr. Darsan commenced an action in the BVI against the Estate and Million Dragon.
Mrs. Salgaocar applied for an anti-suit injunction.
Letters of administration for Mr. Salgaocar’s estate were granted to Mrs. Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar.
Pleadings in Suit 821 were amended.
Mr. Darsan discontinued both BVI 83 and BVI 213.
Mr. Darsan commenced the Suits.
The Suits were served on Mrs Salgaocar.
Mrs Salgaocar entered an appearance for each of the Suits.
Mr. Darsan’s solicitors proposed that the Suits be stayed pending the final determination of Suit 821.
The Estate responded, agreeing in principle to Mr. Darsan’s proposal.
The parties entered into the Consent Orders.
The Estate and Winter Meadow succeeded in Suit 821 before the General Division.
Mr. Darsan’s appeal to the Appellate Division was largely dismissed in AD 88.
The defendants filed the present applications to have the Suits be deemed dismissed.
Mr. Darsan amended his Statement of Claims for both Suits.
The present applications were first heard by the learned Assistant Registrar Kenneth Wang.
The applications were dismissed.
Judgment was delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Application of Res Judicata
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply in this case to warrant the dismissal of the suits.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Merger of cause of action
      • Cause of action estoppel
      • Issue estoppel
      • Extended doctrine of res judicata
  2. Interpretation of Consent Orders
    • Outcome: The court held that the consent orders did not require the plaintiffs to discontinue the suits.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Effect of consent orders on subsequent proceedings
      • Whether consent orders require discontinuance of suits
  3. Doctrine of Merger
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of merger did not apply to nullify the suits.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of merger doctrine
      • Merger of cause of action into judgment
  4. Inherent Powers of the Court
    • Outcome: The court declined to exercise its inherent powers to dismiss the suits, finding no adequate basis to do so.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Exercise of inherent powers to dismiss suits
      • Prevention of injustice or abuse of process

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that assets are held on trust
  2. Order for delivery of assets
  3. Injunction restraining dealing with assets
  4. Repayment of Loans

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duties
  • Repayment of Loans

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another v Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others (Kwan Ka Yu Terence, third party)General Division of the High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 47SingaporeThe judgment in this case was the basis for the defendants' application to dismiss the current suits, arguing that the plaintiffs' causes of action had merged into this judgment.
Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and anotherAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2024] SGHC(A) 27SingaporeThe appellate decision largely upheld the General Division's judgment, which the defendants argued meant the plaintiffs no longer had any actions to pursue in the current suits.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeThe Court of Appeal granted an anti-suit injunction, finding a binary choice between the Estate's claim and Mr. Darsan's claim.
Kinch v Walcott and othersPrivy CouncilYes[1929] AC 482United KingdomCited for the principle that a consent order, not discharged, is as effective as an order of the court made otherwise than by consent.
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the principle that a judgment or order obtained by consent is final and can form the basis for the application of the doctrine of res judicata.
Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin AbdullahCourt of AppealYes[2024] 1 SLR 768SingaporeCited for the principle that the scope and ambit of an interlocutory judgment entered by consent will turn on the spectrum of issues which the parties had agreed would be decided by that judgment, and which would not.
Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle AssociationCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 808SingaporeCited for the principle that once a judgment has been given on a cause of action, the cause of action merges with the judgment of the court and ceases to exist as an independent entity.
Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian AnthonyGeneral DivisionYes[2024] 5 SLR 257SingaporeCited for the definition of a 'cause of action' as the facts that a claimant must prove to obtain a decision in his favour.
Clark and another v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Ltd (Financial Ombudsman Service intervening)English Court of AppealYes[2014] 1 WLR 2502England and WalesCited for the principle that merger only occurs when a court gives judgment on a cause of action and thus extinguishes that cause of action.
Republic of India and another v India Steamship Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 410United KingdomCited for the historical origins of the merger doctrine in common law, stemming from the Latin maxim transit in rem judicatam.
King v HoareCourt of ExchequerYes(1844) 13 M & W 494England and WalesCited for the principle that the judgment is a bar to the original cause of action, because it is thereby reduced to a certainty.
Henry J B Kendall and others v Peter HamiltonHouse of LordsYes(1879) 4 App Cas 504United KingdomCited for the articulation of the rule in King v Hoare in the context of determining whether a cause of action against one jointly liable debtor is the same as a cause of action against another jointly liable debtor.
Clayton v BantHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2020) 272 CLR 1AustraliaCited for the principle that where a cause of action has previously been established by a local court then at common law the merger of the right or obligation in the judgment can be relied upon to preclude re-assertion of the extinguished right.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd)UK Supreme CourtYes[2014] AC 160United KingdomCited for the principle that res judicata is not monolithic but a portmanteau term which is used to describe a number of different legal principles with different juridical origins.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for referring to res judicata as an umbrella doctrine which comprised conceptually distinct though interrelated principles.
Thoday v ThodayEnglish Court of AppealYes[1964] P 181England and WalesCited for Diplock LJ's reference to the doctrine of merger as a sub-species of cause of action estoppel, specifically, when a judgment finds a cause of action to exist.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company)Court of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 771SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's inherent powers are designed to prevent injustice or an abuse of the court's process to remedy unfair situations.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 821SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's invocation of its inherent powers is exceptional and arises only when it is shown that there is a need to invoke them to prevent injustice.
Siva Kumar s/o Avadiar v Quek Leng Chuang and othersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 451SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's invocation of its inherent powers is exceptional and arises only when it is shown that there is a need to invoke them to prevent injustice.
Chan Yun Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator) v Chan Chi Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator)Court of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 67SingaporeCited for the principle that the court's invocation of its inherent powers is exceptional and arises only when it is shown that there is a need to invoke them to prevent injustice.
Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 206SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has a residual discretion to set aside orders and judgments to prevent injustice, but that this is not a licence to litigants to make frivolous applications.
The “Bunga Melati 5”Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has inter alia an inherent power to strike out a claim where an action is plainly or obviously unsustainable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Order 18 Rule 20 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Order 20 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trust Agreement
  • Special Purpose Vehicles
  • Share Transfers
  • Oral Agreement
  • Loans
  • Consent Orders
  • Merger
  • Res Judicata
  • Inherent Powers

15.2 Keywords

  • Consent Order
  • Res Judicata
  • Merger
  • Dismissal of Suit
  • Inherent Powers
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Litigation75
Litigation65
Commercial Disputes60
Fiduciary Duties50
Trusts and Estates40
Property Law30
Unjust Enrichment30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Trust Law
  • Contract Law
  • Res Judicata