Balakrishnan Chitra

Balakrishnan Chitra is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2019 to 2025. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misuse of drugs act and criminal law. Their track record shows a 40.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated expertise across 26 primary practice areas, with significant experience in misuse of drugs act and evidence law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Misuse of Drugs Act	4 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	4 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Unconscionability	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Undue Influence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Non est factum	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty of Candour	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Witnesses	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Abetment	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal conspiracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Affidavits	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inadequate Legal Assistance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Deficient Legal Services	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trusts and Estates	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Balakrishnan Chitra has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Balakrishnan Chitra has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Regency Legal LLP	3 cases	60% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Haridass: Conspiracy to Traffic Diamorphine & Inadequate Legal Assistance(Nov 2022) Public Prosecutor v Gunalan Goval: Trafficking of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act(Apr 2022) PP v S K Murugan: Voluntariness of Statements & Admissibility in Drug Trafficking Retrial(Jul 2021)
Legal Matrix LLC	1 cases	20% of cases	Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope: Undue Influence in Property Transfer Dispute(Jan 2025)
M/s Regency Legal LLP	1 cases	20% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Lim Koon Eng Jeremiah: Trafficking of Diamorphine(Mar 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Balakrishnan Chitra's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.2
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%
Other	13.0 parties avg	3.0	20%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2025	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Balakrishnan Chitra's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(40%)	40%
Other	1(20%)	20%
Won	2(40%)	40%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Other: 1 cases (50.0%)
2025	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope: Undue Influence in Property Transfer Dispute 16 Jan 2025 Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope (Defendant)Won	16 Jan 2025	Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, Mdm Ain, dismissing the claimant's claims.
2	Public Prosecutor v Haridass: Conspiracy to Traffic Diamorphine & Inadequate Legal Assistance 15 Nov 2022 Haridass s/o Mohan (Defendant)Other	15 Nov 2022	Haridass s/o Mohan (Defendant): Application AllowedAccused allowed to recall Prosecution witnesses and give further evidence.
3	Public Prosecutor v Gunalan Goval: Trafficking of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 24 Apr 2022 Gunalan Goval (Accused)Lost	24 Apr 2022	Gunalan Goval (Accused): ConvictionAccused convicted of trafficking cannabis.
4	PP v S K Murugan: Voluntariness of Statements & Admissibility in Drug Trafficking Retrial 29 Jul 2021 S K Murugan Subrawmanian (Defendant)Won	29 Jul 2021	S K Murugan Subrawmanian (Defendant): Statements inadmissibleThe court held that the statements were made involuntarily and should not be admitted into evidence.
5	Public Prosecutor v Lim Koon Eng Jeremiah: Trafficking of Diamorphine 13 Mar 2019 Lim Koon Eng Jeremiah (Defendant)Lost	13 Mar 2019	Lim Koon Eng Jeremiah (Defendant): Conviction and mandatory death sentence imposedThe accused was convicted of possession of not less than 21.25g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and the mandatory death sentence was imposed.