Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar: Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and other appellants appealed against the decision of the High Court in favor of Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and Winter Meadow Capital Inc, regarding alleged breaches of trust. The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal (SUM 46) and later sought to amend this application (SUM 5). The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the request to rehear SUM 46 and, consequently, dismissed SUM 5.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appellants’ request to rehear SUM 46 and SUM 5 dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court rejects request to rehear application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, providing guidance on s 41(8) of the SCJA.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Darsan Jitendra JhaveriAppellant, DefendantIndividualRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Winter Meadow Capital IncRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedWon
Singapore Star Holdings Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Great Newton Properties Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Capital Glory Investments Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Newton Noble Properties Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Sino Noble Asset Management Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Singapore Star Investments Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Singapore Star Shipping Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Singapore Star Properties Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Sino Ling Tao Resources Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Millers Capital Investments Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Nova Raffles Holdings Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedLost
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar)Respondent, PlaintiffIndividualRequest to rehear SUM 46 dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Debbie Ong Siew LingJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
See Kee OonJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eva Teh Jing HuiK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Rajaram Muralli RajaK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Tan Chee MengWongPartnership LLP
Lim Wei LeeWongPartnership LLP
Daryl WongWongPartnership LLP
Victoria YuWongPartnership LLP
Chin Ming FwuWongPartnership LLP
Wee MinWongPartnership LLP
Narayanan SreenivasanK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Jaikanth ShankarDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Ng Shu WenDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Kanapathi Pillai NirumalanNiru & Co LLC
Davinder SinghDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Jaspreet Singh SachdevDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Ritesh VamanNiru & Co LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Darsan and Mr. Salgaocar entered into an agreement in 2003.
  2. Mr. Salgaocar commenced action in Singapore in 2015 alleging breaches of trust by Mr. Darsan.
  3. Mr. Salgaocar passed away in 2016, and his estate continued the claim.
  4. The Appellants sought to admit fresh evidence in their appeal against the Judge’s decision.
  5. The fresh evidence related to the issue of illegality raised below.
  6. The Appellants requested for SUM 46 to be reheard by the full coram of the AD.
  7. The Appellants also filed SUM 5 seeking to adduce another piece of evidence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another, Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement made between Mr. Darsan and Mr. Salgaocar
Mr. Salgaocar commenced action in Singapore as the first plaintiff in HC/S 821/2015
Mr. Salgaocar passed away
Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of Suit 821
Appellants filed AD/SUM 46/2023
SUM 46 was dismissed by a two-member coram of the Appellate Division of the High Court
Appellants requested in writing for SUM 46 to be reheard by the full coram of the AD
Appellants filed AD/SUM 5/2024
Full coram rejected the Appellants’ request for SUM 46 to be reheard and dismissed SUM 5

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellants did not provide cogent reasons for the request to rehear the application to adduce fresh evidence and dismissed the request.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relevance of fresh evidence
      • Whether the original decision contains a legal error
      • Whether discretion was exercised on a wrong principle
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 1 WLR 1489
      • [2018] 2 SLR 215

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to adduce further evidence
  2. Rehearing of application

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Appellate Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited for the test regarding the admissibility of fresh evidence.
BNX v BOE and another appealAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 215SingaporeCited for modification of the test in Ladd v Marshall regarding the admissibility of fresh evidence.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) & Anor v Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri & OrsHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 47SingaporeThe decision being appealed against in AD 88.
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 499SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has discretion to allow or deny requests for further arguments to be heard.
Ng Hoe Keong & Ors v OAG Engineering Sdn Bhd & OrsFederal CourtYes[2022] 3 MLJ 641MalaysiaCited for the proposition that a request for a full coram to rehear an application should only be allowed if there are cogent reasons to do so.
Young v NobleCourt of Appeal of Newfoundland and LabradorYes[2016] NJ No. 360CanadaCited for the proposition that a request for a full coram to rehear an application should only be allowed if there are cogent reasons to do so.
Stacey v StaceyNewfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Court of Appeal)Yes[2009] NJ No. 247CanadaCited for summarising the relevant considerations for the question of whether a rehearing ought to be ordered.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rule 57.31(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1986

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Courts of Judicature Act 1964Malaysia
Judicature Act 1990Canada

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fresh evidence
  • Rehearing
  • Full coram
  • Cogent reasons
  • Illegality
  • Special purpose vehicles
  • Appellate Division

15.2 Keywords

  • Appeal
  • Fresh evidence
  • Rehearing
  • Singapore
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Trust75
Estate Administration60
Evidence Law50
Illegality45
Amendment of Pleadings40
Foreign Exchange Management Act35
Arbitration30
Administrative Law25
Criminal Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Evidence