Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri v Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar: Appeal on Breach of Trust & Extension of Time Application

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and eleven Singapore-incorporated special purpose vehicles appealed against the decision of the High Court in Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri, which held that Mr. Darsan had committed breaches of trust. The Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar and Winter Meadow Capital Inc were the plaintiffs in the original suit and the respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the respondents' application to strike out the appeal and made no order on the applications to adduce further evidence. The court addressed applications regarding the adducing of further evidence and an extension of time to strike out the appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to strike out the appeal dismissed; no order made on applications to adduce further evidence.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding breaches of trust. The court dismissed the application to strike out the appeal and made no order on applications to adduce further evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Darsan Jitendra JhaveriAppellantIndividualApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Winter Meadow Capital IncRespondentCorporationApplication to adduce further evidence: No order madeNeutral
Singapore Star Holdings Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Great Newton Properties Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Capital Glory Investments Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Newton Noble Properties Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Sino Noble Asset Management Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Singapore Star Investments Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Singapore Star Shipping Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Singapore Star Properties Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Sino Ling Tao Resources Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Millers Capital Investments Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Nova Raffles Holdings Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication to strike out appeal dismissedNeutral
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar)RespondentIndividualApplication to adduce further evidence: No order madeNeutral

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

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Darsan and eleven SPVs appealed against a decision that Mr. Darsan had committed breaches of trust.
  2. The Estate of Mr. Salgaocar and Winter Meadow Capital Inc were the plaintiffs in the original suit and respondents in the appeal.
  3. The respondents applied to strike out the appeal and to adduce further evidence.
  4. Mr. Darsan filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi, and the respondents sought an anti-suit injunction.
  5. The respondents argued that Mr. Darsan was acting in contempt of court.
  6. The court considered whether an extension of time should be granted for filing the striking out application.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and othersvLakshmi Anil Salgaocar (suing as the administratrix of the estate of Anil Vassudeva Salgaocar) and another, , [2024] SGHC(A) 20
  2. , Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023, Civil Appeal No 88 of 2023

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Claim commenced in HC/S 821/2015
Mr. Salgaocar passed away
Judge held that Mr. Darsan had committed breaches of trust
Notice of appeal served
Mr. Darsan filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No 14567 in the High Court of Delhi
Respondents filed HC/OA 1197/2023 for an anti-suit injunction
Respondents filed HC/SUM 3643/2023 seeking an ex parte interim ASI
Interim ASI granted
Mr. Darsan's lawyers in Delhi asked the High Court of Delhi to make an interim order directing that the “status quo be maintained qua the subject monies/shares”
Status Quo Order uploaded on the website of the High Court of Delhi
Mr. Darsan filed an application to amend prayer (iii) of No 14567
SUM 2 was filed
Court dismissed SUM 41
Case management conference held
Mdm Lakshmi's written submissions dated 5 February 2024 for SUM 2 stated (at para 15) that Mdm Lakshmi had already relied on the Hadkinson principle in her Respondent’s Case in AD 88 on 1 December 2023
SUM 12 was filed
SUM 16 was filed
Court made no order on SUM 2 and SUM 16 and dismissed SUM 12
Grounds of decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of time for filing a striking out application
    • Outcome: The court held that no extension of time should be granted for the filing of SUM 12.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Striking out an appeal
    • Outcome: The court was not persuaded that the conduct of Mr. Darsan warranted a striking out of AD 88.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Adducing further evidence on appeal
    • Outcome: The court held that no leave was required to rely on documents for the purpose of persuading the court not to hear an appeal.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking out of appeal
  2. Permission to adduce further evidence

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Appellate Procedure
  • Civil 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) & Anor v Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri & OrsGeneral Division of the High CourtYes[2023] SGHC 47SingaporeThis is the original decision being appealed. The Judge held that Mr Darsan had committed breaches of trust.
Hadkinson v HadkinsonN/AYes[1952] P. 285N/ACited for the Hadkinson principle, which states that the court may exercise its discretion to refuse to hear a party in contempt unless and until he has purged his contempt.
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 3 All ER 745N/ACited for the requirements to admit additional evidence on appeal.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)N/AYes[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited for the rationale behind the Ladd v Marshall requirements, which is that of finality in litigation.
Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger) v Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd and another matterN/AYes[2022] 2 SLR 521SingaporeCited to show that the Ladd v Marshall requirements are not applied to new points or claims raised on appeal.
Aathar Ah Kong Andrew v OUE Lippo Healthcare LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 48SingaporeCited for the factors the court considers when deciding if an extension of time should be granted for the filing of a striking out application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 19 r 35(14) of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court 2021Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Breach of trust
  • Striking out
  • Extension of time
  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Hadkinson principle
  • Abuse of process
  • Contempt of court

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of trust
  • appeal
  • striking out
  • extension of time
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Trust Law
  • Appeals