Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran

Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2012 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in construction law and building and construction industry security of payment act. Their track record shows a 43.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 14% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated expertise across 28 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and construction law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	6 cases	12% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	5 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Waiver	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Limitation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Promissory estoppel	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Adjudication Determination	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Constructive Trust	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trust	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Equity	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Construction Adjudication	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 7 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Eldan Law LLP	7 cases	100% of cases	Deniyal bin Kamis v Mapo Engineering: Minority Shareholder Oppression under Companies Act(Jul 2023) Milan International v Cluny Development: Performance Bond & Building Contract Dispute(Feb 2018) Audi Construction v. Kian Hiap Construction: Security of Payment Act & Validity of Payment Claims(Jan 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.6
Complex Cases: 1 (14%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	42.8 parties avg	2.8	57%
Won	32.3 parties avg	2.3	43%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2023	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(57%)	57%
Won	3(43%)	43%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	444,373.61	74,062.276 cases	6

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Deniyal bin Kamis v Mapo Engineering: Minority Shareholder Oppression under Companies Act 03 Jul 2023 Niew Bock Leng (Defendant)Lost	03 Jul 2023	Niew Bock Leng (Defendant): LostJudgment against the Defendant; share buy-out ordered. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Milan International v Cluny Development: Performance Bond & Building Contract Dispute 12 Feb 2018 Milan International Pte Ltd (Applicant)Lost	12 Feb 2018	Milan International Pte Ltd (Applicant): Applications dismissedMilan's applications for an interim and final injunction were dismissed, and Milan was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to Cluny (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Audi Construction v. Kian Hiap Construction: Security of Payment Act & Validity of Payment Claims 21 Jan 2018 Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	21 Jan 2018	Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements to be paid (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	TT International Ltd v Ho Lee Construction: Loss of Profits, Construction Contract Termination & Waiver 28 Mar 2017 Ho Lee Construction Private Limited (Defendant)Lost	28 Mar 2017	Ho Lee Construction Private Limited (Defendant): Claim DismissedThe Defendant is not entitled to recover for loss of profits on the uncompleted parts of the works. However, it is entitled to recover a 15% margin on the costs under the heads in cl 1.1(q)(i) and (ii) in lieu of, inter alia, loss of profits. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	JR Marine Systems v Rankine: Striking Out Claim for Berlian Ferries Shares Based on Abuse of Process 23 Dec 2013 Rankine Bernadette Adeline (Respondent)Won	23 Dec 2013	Rankine Bernadette Adeline (Respondent): Orders sought in SUM 5744/2012 grantedOrders sought in SUM 5744/2012 granted and ordered costs of $7,000 and reasonable disbursements to the First Respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Australian Timber Products v A Pacific Construction: Enforceability of Adjudication Determination under SOPA 28 Feb 2013 Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	28 Feb 2013	Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; the court dismissed the Defendant's application to set aside the adjudication determination and the AR's order. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (SGD) is assumed.
7	Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act Dispute 01 Nov 2012 Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) (Respondent, Appellant)Won	01 Nov 2012	Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal AllowedChua Say Eng's appeal was allowed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.