Judgment Header
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe Ming [2004] SGHC 87
Loading…
[2004] SGHC 87
General Division of the High Court of Singapore4 Oct 2004Bankrutcy 115/2004
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“represented by counsel. This was the case on appeal (ie, in Rasmachayana itself), as well as at first instance (The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe Ming [2004] SGHC 87). It must have therefore been the case that the debtors became aware of the bankruptcy proceedings agains”
“is to require him to incur more costs with no apparent benefit to either the creditor or the debtor. In --------The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe Ming [2004] SGHC 87 at [11] and [12], an AR held that a purposive interpretation of r 96(4)(c) supports the conclusion that t”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe Ming [2004] SGHC 87
Case Metadata
Case No: Bankrutcy 115/2004
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2004-10-04
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.