Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania

Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 6 counsels. Through 2 law firms. They have been involved in 2 complex cases, representing 50.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania has been represented by 2 law firms and 6 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Templars Law LLC	1 case	Lam Kuet Keng Steven John Madeline Choong Steven Lam
AsiaLegal LLC	2 cases	P Jeya Putra Wendy Leong Wendy Leong Marnyi

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 2 (50.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	43.0 parties avg	3.0	100.0%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2006	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(100.0%)	100.0%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	414,875.00	103,718.754 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2017-sgca-19 16 Mar 2017	16 Mar 2017	Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed; Appellant to pay Respondent $18,000 in costs, inclusive of reasonable disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2016-sghc-222 10 Oct 2016	10 Oct 2016	Defendant	LostDefendant's application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed, and the sum of $396,875 paid into court was released to the plaintiff. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	2007-sgca-8 13 Feb 2007	13 Feb 2007	Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed with costs. The court found that the agreement was not a moneylending arrangement. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	2006-sghc-131 25 Jul 2006	25 Jul 2006	Defendant	LostThe court found that the arrangement did not constitute moneylending, and therefore ruled against the defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.