Biswas v Mukherjee: Extension of Time to Appeal Bankruptcy Order

Mr. Pradeepto Kumar Biswas applied for an extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal against the decision of Goh Yihan J in HC/SUM 268/2023. The Appellate Division of the High Court, consisting of See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J, dismissed the application, citing the lack of merit in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the respondents, Sabyasachi Mukherjee and Gouri Mukherjee. The court also awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the respondents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

EOT Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents on an indemnity basis.

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for extension of time to appeal a bankruptcy order was dismissed due to lack of merit and prejudice to respondents.

1.7 Decision Date

30 January 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas	Applicant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers
Sabyasachi Mukherjee	Respondent	Individual	Costs Awarded	Won	See Chern Yang of Drew & Napier LLC Joshua Quek Wen Chieh of Drew & Napier LLC
Gouri Mukherjee	Respondent	Individual	Costs Awarded	Won	See Chern Yang of Drew & Napier LLC Joshua Quek Wen Chieh of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
Audrey Lim	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Tean	Carson Law Chambers
See Chern Yang	Drew & Napier LLC
Joshua Quek Wen Chieh	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The Applicant was adjudged bankrupt on 1 December 2022.
The Applicant sought to adduce fresh evidence in SUM 268 for the hearings of the Three RAs.
The Judge dismissed SUM 268 and the Three RAs on 15 September 2023.
The Applicant's lawyers attempted to file an application for permission to appeal on 23 October 2023 but it was rejected.
The Applicant filed the EOT Application on 31 October 2023.
The Suit 1270 Judgment ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondents US$3.45m plus interest.

5. Formal Citations

Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another, Originating Application No 54 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 3

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2021-10-08	B 2425 filed
2022-12-01	Applicant adjudged bankrupt in HC/B 2425/2021
2023-02-01	Applicant filed SUM 268
2023-09-15	Judge dismissed SUM 268 along with the Three RAs
2023-10-09	Judge dealt with costs of the matters and awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the Respondents
2023-10-23	Applicant’s lawyers attempted to file an application for permission to appeal
2023-10-25	Applicant’s lawyers attempted to re-file the PTA Application
2023-10-27	Applicant’s lawyers re-filed the PTA Application again
2023-10-31	Applicant filed the EOT Application
2018-12-11	Suit 1270 Judgment granted

7. Legal Issues

Extension of Time to File an Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for extension of time, finding the intended appeal hopeless and prejudicial to the respondents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasons for delay
  - Prospect of success
  - Prejudice to respondent
- Related Cases:
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  - [2019] 2 SLR 341
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 510
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1043
  - [2020] 3 SLR 1196
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 260
  - [2023] SGHC(A) 5
  - [2022] 2 SLR 725
  - [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862
  - [2022] 1 SLR 370
  - [2022] SGHC(A) 16
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 25
  - [2021] SGHC 125
  - [2023] 1 SLR 1648
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 20
  - [2022] 1 SLR 434
  - [2022] 2 SLR 340
  - [2023] SGHC 262

8. Remedies Sought

Extension of time to file an originating application for permission to appeal

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Appellate Practice
Bankruptcy Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ladd v Marshall	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited for the test to adduce fresh evidence.
Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)	N/A	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 341	Singapore	Cited for the application of the Ladd v Marshall test depending on the nature of the proceedings.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757	Singapore	Cited for the four factors applicable to an application for extension of time.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	N/A	Cited for the four factors applicable to an application for extension of time.
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 510	Singapore	Cited for the prospect of success relating to the success of the appeal or whether the intended appeal itself is hopeless.
Tay Eng Chuan v United Overseas Insurance Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1043	N/A	Cited for the test of whether the application for leave to appeal could be said to be hopeless.
Ng Tze Chew Diana v Aikco Construction Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 1196	N/A	Cited for the grant of leave to appeal being a necessary precursor to the applicant’s appeal succeeding.
Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260	N/A	Cited for procedural mistakes, even if bona fide, being insufficient in themselves to justify the grant of an extension of time for leave to appeal.
Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC(A) 5	Singapore	Cited for a mere assertion of an oversight being insufficient and can lead to an abuse of process.
Leow Peng Yam v Kang Jia Dian Aryall	High Court	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 725	Singapore	Cited for the approach of considering the grounds for leave to appeal before concluding that there was also no merit in the appeal.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another	N/A	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862	N/A	Cited for the grounds for permission to appeal.
Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd v JTrust Asia Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 370	N/A	Cited for the general principle that the prima facie error must be one of law and not of fact.
Rodeo Power Pte Ltd and others v Tong Seak Kan and another	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC(A) 16	Singapore	Cited for errors of fact needing to be clear beyond reasonable argument.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and others	N/A	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 25	N/A	Cited for errors of fact needing to be clear beyond reasonable argument.
Bellingham, Alex v Reed, Michael	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 125	Singapore	Cited for errors of fact needing to be clear beyond reasonable argument.
BIT Baltic Investment & Trading Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v Wee See Boon	N/A	Yes	[2023] 1 SLR 1648	N/A	Cited for an order for indemnity costs being appropriate only in exceptional circumstances.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20	N/A	Cited for an order for indemnity costs being appropriate only in exceptional circumstances.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (interim judicial managers appointed)	N/A	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 434	N/A	Cited for the touchstone of unreasonable conduct in deciding whether to order indemnity costs.
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter	N/A	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 340	N/A	Cited for the Applicant attempting to re-litigate the matter.
Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 262	Singapore	The Judge’s written judgment in SUM 268.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Extension of time
Permission to appeal
Bankruptcy order
Prospect of success
Prejudice
Indemnity costs
Fresh evidence
Natural justice

15.2 Keywords

extension of time
bankruptcy
appeal
Singapore
civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Extension of Time	95
Civil Procedure	90
Prospect of Success	80
Bankruptcy	70
Administrative Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Bankruptcy