[2015] SGHC 1

“]). The Defendant must go beyond bare allegations and provide sufficient material to the court to justify the existence of a triable issue (Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah [2015] SGHC 1 at [16]).”

“to the court to justify a conclusion that the matter be left to trial rather than dealt with summarily under the bankruptcy procedure (see Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah [2015] SGHC 1 at [16]). On the facts of Chimbusco (CA), the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s decision that th”

“make spurious allegations, and he should adduce evidence on affidavit to show that a triable issue has been raised (see Chimbusco at [30]; Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah [2015] SGHC 1 at [21]).”

“1151 which was in the Respondent’s Case for the Appeal, but that case does not stand for this proposition at all. Neither does the case of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah [2015] SGHC 1 which was referenced in the Appellant’s Case to support his argument on invalid execution of the deed assis”

“bankruptcy procedure: see Lakshmanan Shanmuganathan (also known as L Shanmuganathan) v L Manimuthu and others [2021] 2 SLR 1340 at [47] and Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah [2015] SGHC 1 (“Ravichandran”) at [16], [21] and [37]. The court must assess “whether there is a fair or reasonable prob”