Rakesh Vasu

Rakesh Vasu is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2014. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contract law and sentencing. Their track record shows a 17.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated expertise across 42 primary practice areas, with significant experience in arbitration and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Arbitration	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Escrow Agreements	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Adverse inferences	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Drink Driving	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Rioting	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Substituted Service	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Examination of judgment debtor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Consent of Public Prosecutor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Irregularities in proceedings	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Defective consent of Public Prosecutor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Curative powers of court	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Novation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Drilling Contracts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Public Order Offences	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Confessions	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Lobbying	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Obstructing the Course of Justice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Obstruction of Justice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Pleadings	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice2% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Traffic Violations	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rakesh Vasu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Rakesh Vasu has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Gomez & Vasu LLC	2 cases	33% of cases	Burgundy Global v Transocean: Damages for Breach of Contract & EJD Order Jurisdiction(May 2014) Transocean v Burgundy: Breach of Escrow Agreement & Damages for Loss of Drilling Contract Profits(Jun 2013)
Gomez & Vasu	2 cases	33% of cases	Transocean v Burgundy: Dispute over Escrow Agreement & Arbitration Clause in Drilling Contract(Jan 2010) Sivakumar v PP: Drink Driving - No Special Reasons to Avoid Disqualification(Feb 2002)
Gomez and Vasu	2 cases	33% of cases	Pannirselvam v Public Prosecutor: Rioting, Common Object, and Sentencing Principles(Feb 2005) Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed v PP: Rioting with Deadly Weapons & Criminal Intimidation(Oct 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Rakesh Vasu's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.2
Complex Cases: 2 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	43.3 parties avg	3.3	67%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	17%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(67%)	67%
Partial	1(17%)	17%
Won	1(17%)	17%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	12,000.00	12,000.001 cases	1
USD	55,001.46	27,500.732 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Burgundy Global v Transocean: Damages for Breach of Contract & EJD Order Jurisdiction 13 May 2014 Burgundy Global Exploration Corp (Appellant)Won	13 May 2014	Burgundy Global Exploration Corp (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed in part; damages reduced to US$55,001.46, representing wasted costs and expenses in entering into the Escrow Agreement.
2	Transocean v Burgundy: Breach of Escrow Agreement & Damages for Loss of Drilling Contract Profits 20 Jun 2013 Burgundy Global Exploration Corporation (Defendant, Appellant)Partial	20 Jun 2013	Burgundy Global Exploration Corporation (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal dismissed in part; damages varied regarding cold-stacking expenses.
3	Transocean v Burgundy: Dispute over Escrow Agreement & Arbitration Clause in Drilling Contract 27 Jan 2010 Burgundy Global Exploration Corp (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	27 Jan 2010	Burgundy Global Exploration Corp (Defendant, Respondent): Stay of Action DismissedDefendant's application for stay was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000 plus reasonable disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Pannirselvam v Public Prosecutor: Rioting, Common Object, and Sentencing Principles 01 Feb 2005 Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy (Appellant)Lost	01 Feb 2005	Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
5	Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed v PP: Rioting with Deadly Weapons & Criminal Intimidation 17 Oct 2004 Rajendran s/o Rajagopal (Appellant)Lost	17 Oct 2004	Rajendran s/o Rajagopal (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal against conviction and sentence for rioting whilst armed with deadly weapon and disorderly behaviour was dismissed.
6	Sivakumar v PP: Drink Driving - No Special Reasons to Avoid Disqualification 19 Feb 2002 Sivakumar s/o Rajoo (Appellant)Lost	19 Feb 2002	Sivakumar s/o Rajoo (Appellant): Appeal against sentence dismissedThe appellant's appeal against the sentence, specifically the disqualification order, was dismissed.