This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1998] SGHC 115
Suit 789/97, SIC No 9328/97
Between
Trade Alliance (S) Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Sujinder Electronics (Imp & Exp) Pte Ltd |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Trade Alliance (S) Pte Ltd v Sujinder Electronics (Imp & Exp) Pte Ltd
[1998] SGHC 115
Suit 789/97, SIC No 9328/97
Lee Seiu Kin JC
16 April 1998
Lee Seiu Kin JC
16 April 1998
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2
3
4 Rao’s account of the facts
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 ex parte
22 Manjit’s account of the facts
23
24 Contradictory Accounts of Events of 17 February 1997
25 inter
alia
alia
26
27
28
29
30 ex parte
31
32
33
34 Grounds for injunction
35 ex parte
36
37
38
39
40 The law
41 30 The MarevaArt Trend Ltd v. Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd [1983] 1 MLJ 25
42 MarevaMareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulk Carriers SA
43 Chan Choy Keen Collin v. PUB [1997] 1 SLR 604
44 33 The MarevaBekhor & Co. v. BiltonMarevaThird Chandris v UnimarineAmixco Asia Pte Ltd v Bank Negara Indonesia 1946 [1992] 1 SLR 703
45
46 Contempt of Court
47 ex parte
48 Young v JackmanLee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Anor [1997] 3 SLR 489X Ltd v Morgan Grampian
(Publishers) Ltd [1991]better accords with contemporary judicial attitudes to the importance of
ensuring procedural justice
(Publishers) Ltd [1991]better accords with contemporary judicial attitudes to the importance of
ensuring procedural justice
49
50 Conclusion
51
52 Lee Seiu Kin
53 JUDICIAL COMMISIONER
54 Singapore
Lee Seiu Kin JC |
Chen Chuen Tat (Chen Lee & Partners) for the defendants
Ronald Choo (Allen & Gledhill) for the plaintiffs
Ronald Choo (Allen & Gledhill) for the plaintiffs
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)