AKRO Group DMCC v Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd: Breach of Contract, Fraud, and Fiduciary Duty
AKRO Group DMCC sued Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd in the Singapore International Commercial Court for US$3,202,559.63 in unpaid project management fees. Discovery Drilling counterclaimed, alleging fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty against AKRO Group DMCC, Parmod Kumar, Sunil Kumar Arora, Arjun Suresh Kandoth, David William Fowler, and AYBI Energy FZE. The court entered judgment in favor of Discovery Drilling on its counterclaim, awarding damages for losses suffered due to the late delivery of a rig, inflated labor hire charges, and fabricated invoices.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in Counterclaim
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
AKRO Group sued Discovery Drilling for unpaid fees. Discovery Drilling counterclaimed, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The court ruled in favor of Discovery Drilling.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKRO Group DMCC | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Parmod Kumar | Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Judgment against Parmod Kumar | Lost | |
| Sunil Kumar Arora | Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Judgment against Sunil Kumar Arora | Lost | |
| Arjun Suresh Kandoth | Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Judgment against Arjun Suresh Kandoth | Lost | |
| David William Fowler | Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Judgment against David William Fowler | Lost | |
| AYBI Energy FZE | Defendant in Counterclaim | Corporation | Judgment against AYBI Energy FZE | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Patricia Bergin | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Visheshwar Shrivastav | V Shrivastav & Co |
4. Facts
- AKRO was contracted to provide project management services for the refurbishment of a rig.
- DDPL purchased the rig 'Rowan Louisiana' for use by Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd (JDIL).
- AKRO submitted quotes/invoices to DDPL, some of which were later found to be forged or fabricated.
- DDPL made payments to AKRO based on these falsified documents.
- Parmod Kumar and Sunil Kumar Arora, DDPL's representatives, allegedly conspired with AKRO to defraud DDPL.
- Arjun Suresh Kandoth allegedly admitted to forging documents and bribing Mr. Kumar and Mr. Arora.
- The Rig was not delivered to ONGC by the agreed date.
5. Formal Citations
- AKRO Group DMCC v Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd, Suit No 1 of 2017, [2019] SGHC(I) 08
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| DDPL and JDIL signed a Memorandum of Understanding | |
| DDPL and JDIL entered into a Charter Hire Agreement | |
| AKRO and DDPL conducted negotiations in Houston, Texas | |
| AKRO and DDPL executed an agreement in Delhi, India | |
| AKRO commenced proceedings against DDPL in the High Court | |
| DDPL filed its Defence and Counterclaim | |
| AKRO filed its Reply to DDPL’s Defence and its Defence to DDPL’s Counterclaim | |
| AKRO filed detailed AEICs | |
| AKRO filed detailed AEICs | |
| AKRO filed its Amended Statement of Claim | |
| DDPL filed an Amended Defence and Counterclaim | |
| DDPL filed a Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim | |
| Order made requiring AKRO to file and serve a List of Documents | |
| Order made that Allen & Gledhill LLP had ceased to be the solicitors acting for AKRO | |
| AKRO’s claims against DDPL were dismissed | |
| DDPL filed a Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim | |
| DDPL's solicitor in Singapore and Mr Kandoth exchanged correspondence | |
| Mr Kandoth met with Mr Gupta and other representatives of the Jindal Group in Delhi, India | |
| Leave was granted to AsiaLegal LLC to withdraw from further acting and/or appearing for DDPL | |
| Trial dates in February 2019 were vacated and new trial dates were fixed | |
| Decision was made that this action is an offshore case | |
| Trial took place |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that AKRO breached its contractual obligations to DDPL.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that AKRO, Mr. Kandoth, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Kumar and Mr. Arora manipulated and fraudulently misrepresented quotes/invoices to DDPL.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that AKRO breached its fiduciary duties to DDPL.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Arora and Mr. Kumar were involved with AKRO, Mr. Kandoth and Mr. Fowler in the conspiracy as pleaded.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraud
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Conspiracy
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Energy
- Oil and Gas
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teras Offshore Pte Ltd v Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 75 | Singapore | Cited for the court's power to extend the time within which to bring an application for a decision that the action is an offshore case. |
| Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1984) 156 CLR 41 | Australia | Cited for the principles regarding fiduciary duties. |
| Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 654 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding fiduciary duties. |
| Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding fiduciary duties. |
| ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 918 | Singapore | Cited for the test for awarding punitive damages. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Project Management Fees
- Refurbishment
- Fabricated Invoices
- Forged Invoices
- Liquidated Damages
- Charter Hire Agreement
- SPM Services
- Comparative Statement
- Purchase Order
- Offshore Case
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- fraud
- fiduciary duty
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- rig refurbishment
- project management
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 90 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 85 |
| Misrepresentation | 80 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty