Naidu v Chandnaani - [2020] NZHC 1286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-001963

[2020] NZHC 1286

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of the District Court at Auckland dated 16 August 2019

BETWEEN

DEVENDRA MURTI NAIDU SUKHWINDER SINGH and JASPAL SINGH

Appellants

AND

BHARAT GUL CHANDNAANI

Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2020

Counsel:

M Locke for appellants

N Scampion for respondent

Judgment:

10 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 June 2020 at 2:00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Davenports West Lawyers, Auckland
Smith & Partners, Auckland

Counsel: M Locke, Barrister, Auckland
N Scampion, Shortland Chambers, Auckland

NAIDU v CHANDNAANI [2020] NZHC 1286 [10 June 2020]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Judge G M Harrison granting summary judgment to the respondent, Bharat Chandnaani.

[2] Mr Chandnaani brought a claim in the District Court in which he alleged that the appellants, Devendra Naidu, Sukhwinder Singh, and Jaspal Singh, had agreed to purchase his shares in JAKS Investments (2014) Limited for $262,500 but had only paid him $200,000.

[3] The appellants accepted that they owed Mr Chandnaani a further $50,000 but disputed liability for the remaining $12,500. Judge Harrison granted summary judgment in the sum of $62,500. The appeal relates solely to the disputed balance of
$12,500.

Application for leave to appeal out of time

[4] An appeal must be brought within 20 working days after the decision appealed against is given, but the Court may extend the time to appeal.1

[5] Mr Chandnaani’s notice of appeal was accepted for filing two working days after the due date. It was served on the respondent two or three weeks later, after an unsuccessful attempt to effect service by email.

[6] The delay in effecting service was relatively short and the reasons for the delay have been adequately explained. No prejudice to the respondent would be caused by granting the extension sought and I am satisfied that granting an extension is in the overall interests of justice. I will therefore deal with the appeal on its merits.

Factual background

JAKS

[7] On 14 August 2014 the appellants incorporated JAKS. Mr Chandnaani subsequently purchased a quarter stake in the company on 9 December 2016, for

1 High Court Rules 2016 r 20.4.

$262,500. From that time Mr Chandnaani, Sukhwinder Singh, Jaspal Singh, and a company of which Mr Naidu was a director and shareholder each owned equal shares in JAKS.

[8] JAKS owned a property in Papatoetoe that it intended to develop. The company did not have sufficient funds to develop the property, however, and was under pressure from its financier, the Bank of New Zealand. Mr Chandnaani became frustrated with the lack of progress, and in late 2017 sought to exit the venture.

Agreement to buy Mr Chandnaani’s shares

[9] After some discussion, the appellants agreed to purchase Mr Chandnaani’s shares in JAKS.

[10] On 9 October 2017, Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Naidu v Chandnaani

Details

AGLC: Naidu v Chandnaani [2020] NZHC 1286
Case: [2020] NZHC 1286
Decision Date: 10 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Naidu v Chandnaani was brought against a decision of the District Court granting summary judgment in favour of Bharat Chandnaani against Devendra Naidu, Sukhwinder Singh, and Jaspal Singh. Mr Chandnaani had alleged that the appellants agreed to purchase his shares in JAKS Investments (2014) Limited for $262,500 but only paid him $200,000. The appeal related solely to the disputed balance of $12,500. The key issue was whether there was a bona fide, reasonable or arguable defence to Mr Chandnaani’s claim. The Court found that the appellants had previously advanced a number of untenable defences that were directly contradicted by the contemporaneous documents. They had now abandoned those defences and advanced a new argument for the first time on appeal. The Court found that the new defence was also untenable and dismissed the appeal. The Court did, however, grant the appellants leave to appeal out of time.

Orders