S
SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD
Organisation 3 cases
About SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD
SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD appears as a party in 3 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning September 2025 to October 2025. SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD appeared as plaintiff in 2 cases, respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (2), Court of Appeal (1).
How many court cases involve SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD?
SOTELLA FUND PTE. LTD appears in 3 published judgments from September 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (2 cases).
Practice Areas
Share Subscription Agreement -failing to redeem and pay the redemption sums for its RPS in accordance with the Principal Agreements- The MOD and DOU constitute contingent securities designed to secure obligations arising from the Principal Agreements 1 FINAL DETERMINATION 43 For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish special circumstances within the meaning of Section 73 CJA. The circumstances raised by the Defendants relate to the alleged merits of their appeal and not to enforcement of the judgment. This is a purely monetary judgment, and it is settled law that stay of execution is rarely granted in respect of monetary judgments. The Defendants have failed to demonstrate that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The Plaintiff will suffer clear and substantial prejudice if stay is granted, whereas the Defendants will suffer no irreparable harm as any alleged loss is capable of restitution should their appeal succeed. The balance of convenience and justice lies in favour of the Plaintiff, who has already been deprived of the fruits of its judgment for an extended period while the Defendants persist in delay and non-compliance. The outcome of Appeal 433 has no bearing on the present stay applications. The Defendants' reliance on that decision is legally irrelevant and inconsistent with their own position before the Court of Appeal, amounting to approbation and reprobation. The Defendants' pattern of filing multiple stay applications demonstrates a strategy of delay and disentitles them to equitable relief. 1 44 In the exercise of this Court's discretion, it would be inequitable and contrary to settled law to permit the Defendants to suspend enforcement of a final monetary judgment without showing genuine risk of irretrievable loss. The law does not require this Court to withhold the fruits of a valid monetary judgment out of apprehension that an appellate court's reasoning elsewhere might bear upon the parties' dispute. 1 45 For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' stay of execution applications: • Enclosure 198 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-104-03/2023; and • Enclosure 155 filed in Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-562-10/2023 are hereby DISMISSED with costs. 1 46 Costs of RM10,000.00 is to be paid by the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, subject to allocator. 1 ORDERS OF THE COURT 106 For the foregoing reasons, this Court makes the following orders: (a) Declaration: IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are bound by the terms of the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity dated 21.12.2016 when read together with the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021, and are obligated to perform their obligations set forth therein; 1 (b) It is also DECLARED that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are in material and fundamental breach of the express terms of the said Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity dated 21.12.2016 when read together with the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021, in failing and/or neglecting to take steps pursuant to Clause 1, Clause 2 and Clause 4 of the said Deed of Undertaking to perform or cause to be performed and/or pay the sums that are payable in consequences of the default, failure or omission made by Lextrend to make payment of the Unpaid Redemption Sum with interest in accordance with the contractually agreed Redemption Timeline(s) under the Share Subscription Agreement dated 21.12.2016, the Letter Agreement dated 5.1.2017, and the Supplemental Agreement dated 7.9.2021; 1 (c) Judgment for Principal Sum: JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally for the Total Unpaid Redemption Sum comprising: (i) USD26,081,300.00;and (ii) RM94,012,500.00; 1