Judgment Header
Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114
Court DecisionSGHC
[2011] SGHC 114
[2011] SGHC 114
General Division of the High Court of Singapore9 May 2011OSB No. 28 of 2009/D (Registrar's Appeal No.393 of 2009/W)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 5 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
5Later cases and laws citing this decision
“utory demand; and (d) the prejudice that might result from an extension of time. The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined on the facts (Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114 at [32]).”
“(c) the grounds for setting aside the Statutory Demand; and (d) the prejudice that might result from an extension of time (Koh Kim Teck at [51], citing Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114 at [32]). Further, while the threshold to grant an extension of time for a debtor to apply to set aside a”
“In Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114, the High Court had occasion to consider s 61(1)(d) BA, which was later re-enacted as s 311(1)(d) IRDA. Kan Ting Chiu J held (at [12]) that, with respect to credit facilities, the place where the deb”
“the reasons for the delay; (c) the grounds for setting aside the statutory demand; and (d) the prejudice that may result from an extension of time (see Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114 at [32]).”
“The factors that the court should take into consideration when an application is made for an extension of time to set aside an SD are set out in Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch [2011] SGHC 114 at [32]. The factors are as follows:”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: OSB No. 28 of 2009/D (Registrar's Appeal No.393 of 2009/W)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-05-09
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.