Deldar Tony Singh and another v Rajinder Singh and others

Deldar Tony Singh and another v Rajinder Singh and others

Section 299(2) applies only to creditors' voluntary winding up; the Company was under a creditors' voluntary winding up (no declaration of solvency under s293 was produced); therefore leave under s299(2) was required to commence Suit 444 against the Company, and by analogous common law principle leave was required to commence proceedings against the liquidator in a creditors' voluntary winding up; plaintiffs failed to obtain leave so the Statement of Claim is struck out as against the second and third defendants.

Citation
[2012] SGHCR 13
Parties
Plaintiffs: Deldar Tony Singh and another; First Defendant: Rajinder Singh; Second Defendant: Second Defendant (the Company); Third Defendant: Third Defendant (the Liquidator)
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
28 August 2012
Case Number
Suit No 444 of 2012 (Summons No 3260 of 2012 & Summons No 3643 of 2012)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (company Law) / Applications to Strike Out Statement of Claim (sum 3260 and SUM 3643)
Outcome
Applications SUM 3260 and SUM 3643 granted; Statement of Claim in Suit 444 struck out as against the second and third defendants; parties to be heard on costs
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Leave to Commence Proceedings, Liquidator Actions, Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up, Members' Voluntary Winding Up, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Leave to Commence Proceedings Liquidator Actions Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up Members' Voluntary Winding Up +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deldar Tony Singh and another

Plaintiffs

Rajinder Singh

First Defendant

Second Defendant (the Company)

Second Defendant

Third Defendant (the Liquidator)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (company Law) / Applications to Strike Out Statement of Claim (sum 3260 and SUM 3643)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s299(2) of the Companies Act applies to members' voluntary winding up or only to creditors' voluntary winding up
  2. 2 Whether leave of court was required before commencing proceedings against the Company in liquidation
  3. 3 Whether leave of court was required before commencing proceedings against the liquidator

Ratio Decidendi

Section 299(2) applies only to creditors' voluntary winding up; the Company was under a creditors' voluntary winding up (no declaration of solvency under s293 was produced); therefore leave under s299(2) was required to commence Suit 444 against the Company, and by analogous common law principle leave was required to commence proceedings against the liquidator in a creditors' voluntary winding up; plaintiffs failed to obtain leave so the Statement of Claim is struck out as against the second and third defendants.

Court Disposition

Applications SUM 3260 and SUM 3643 granted; Statement of Claim in Suit 444 struck out as against the second and third defendants; parties to be heard on costs

Orders

  • SUM 3260 and SUM 3643 granted
  • Statement of Claim in Suit 444 struck out in favour of the second and third defendants