In The States Courts Of The Republic of Singapore

MC/OC 3133/2024

Between

Kudikaran Pte. Ltd. (Singapore UEN No.202217965K)

..Claimant(s)

And

CHJY Holdings Pte. Ltd. (Singapore UEN No. 201714343Z)

..Respondent(s)

Reply to Defence

This reply to The Defence filed is to clarify matters in the Originating claims as the
Defendant seeks in nature of MC/OC 3133/2024, As requested in paragraph 1 of The
Defence filed.

In respect of paragraph 2 of The Defence, the Claimant clarifies the aspect stated to be
false and untrue particularly the written acknowledgment of adopting the abbreviation
used as the same abbreviations used in the SOC. The excuse of “without admission as to
the accuracy of the abbreviation used” should not be used as an insurance to prevent
persecution for misleading the court.

In respect of paragraph 2 of The Defence , The claimant has given all documentation as the
authorized person and Mr Kandasamy has informed Mr Chi of Kelvin being the authorized
person. This has not been disputed until MC/OC 3133/2024 has been filed against the
Defendant.

In respect of paragraph 3(c) The Abbreviation, Aruna Minimart Pte. Ltd. with the UEN
number of 201600790C has never been used in the SOC. This has been maliciously added
to mislead the court. The instructions or the affidavit need to have this abbreviation, Aruna
Minimart Pte. Ltd. with the UEN number of 201600790C, to cause this frivolous attempt to
manipulate this Honorable Court. Attached is a picture of Aruna Minimart’s signboard with
the company’s name and UEN number with the address of business.

In respect of paragraph 3(f)(g)(h)(i), The Lease agreement states,

(1) CHJY Holdings Pte. Ltd. (UEN No. 201714343Z) having its principal place of business
and registered address at 23 Rochdale Road Singapore 535839 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Landlord" which expression shall where the context so admits include the person
company or body for the time being entitled to the reversion immediately expectant on the
term hereby created) of the one part; and (2) Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. (UEN No.
201839493Z) having its principal place of business and registered address at 26 Jalan
Berseh #01-152 Kelantan Court Singapore 200026 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenant"
which expression shall where the context so admits include the successors and permitted
assigns of the Tenant) of the second part. The has never been sublet, assigned or
otherwise in accordance with clause 2.23 of the Lease agreement prepared by the
defendant. Claimant is the authorized person and successor of Aruna Minimart. Aruna
Grandmart Pte. Ltd. has never stopped operating its business at the said location or sublet
the leased premises owned by the Defendant. Clause 4.2 of the Lease agreement clearly
states that “ Any person who is not a party to this Lease shall have no right under the
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act to enforce any of its covenants stipulations terms
and conditions herein contained”. The claimant is the successor for Aruna Minimart which
is owned by Aruna Grandmart Pte.Ltd and the authorized person for Aruna Grandmart. This
has been explained to Mr Chi long before by Mr Kandasamy but Mr Chi clearly quoted that
he does not want to know how the company is operated. There is no third party involved
and no issues over privity as all deposits and claims will be returned to Aruna Grandmart
Pte. Ltd. Thus without the need for argument, Aruna Minimart is a party to the Lease
Agreement and the Claimant who is the successor of Aruna Minimart and authorized
person for Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. is a party to the Lease agreement. There will be no
exceptions allowed to be justified, as inaccuracy, when malicious insertion of Aruna
Minimart Pte. Ltd. with the UEN number 201600790C as an abreviation in The Defence filed
was filed by the Defendant, to be used to mislead the court on the 10th of May 2024 at
9:47am. This act contradicts the acceptance of the signboard at the leased
premises.(image same as above)

In respect of paragraph 3(j), Mr Kandasamy as been in communication with the Defendant

and may have been allocated a designation by the Defendant as a representative in
communication and correspondence by the defendants assumptions. Mr Kandasamy has
repeatedly informed Mr Chi of the Claimant, who is the authorized person for Aruna
Grandmart Pte. Ltd. . This has never been disputed until the filing of the Originating Claims
by the Claimant. This is proven by the communications thru and fro via Electronic Mails
and whatsapp conversations between Defendant and Claimant.

In respect of paragraph 3(k), The Defendant has the knowledge of Aruna Minimart as the
business outlet Name for Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. at the leased premises, How than
does the insertion of the fabricated abbreviation of Aruna Minimart Pte. Ltd. become
justified . This act is a breach of the penal code sec 424b itself.

In respect of paragraph 3(l), The Defendant has been informed of the designations of all
parties involved and has corresponded with them with the Claimant as the authorized
person for Aruna minimart and Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. . Any assumptions by the
Defendant in The Defence can clearly be rebutted by the electronic mails and whatsapp
messages.

In respect of paragraph 4(a)(b)(c), The Defendant has knowledge of Aruna Minimart as the
outlets name for the said premises owned by The Defendant at 77 Upper East Coast Road
#01-03. The Defendant has been notified to contact the authorized person for Aruna
Minimart multiple times. Conversations have been made without dispute over the
Claimant being the authorized person for Aruna Minmart .The Defendant should not be
vexing the Court over the corporate management of Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. as there
has been no assignment of sublet lease or business take over. No legal rights or deals have
been made for the premises owned by The Defendant. There has never been a transfer of
the lease agreement also. There are also no clause restricting the Company management
for Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. in the Lease contract agreement. The Lease agreement also
states the successors of Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. to be termed as the “tenant” in
paragraph 2.

In respect of paragraph 5, The previous tenant refers to Grocer Pte. Ltd. With the Uen
Number 202023469G and no one else.

In Respect of paragraph 5(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), The email sent via Mr Kandasamy was forwarded
by the Claimant to Mr Kandasamy to be sent to the Defendant. On 19th March 2024 the
Claimant sent an Email after not getting a response for the email dated 11 th March 2024.
The Claimant authorized the rental payment for the month of March 2024.

In respect of paragraph 7(a), The email sent on the 19th of March 2024 was received by
keatsung.chi@ktcgroup.com.sg. In accordance to Electronic Transactions Act
8.2.9 The Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) (‘ETA’) clarifies that, except
with respect to the requirement of writing or signatures in wills, negotiable instruments,
indentures, declarations of trust or powers of attorney, contracts involving immovable
property and documents of title (s 4(1)), electronic records may be used in expressing an
offer or acceptance of an offer in contract formation (s 11). A declaration of intent between
contracting parties may also be made in the form of an electronic record (s 12). The ETA
also clarifies when an electronic record may be attributed to a particular person (s 13) and
how the time and place of despatch and receipt of an electronic record are to be
determined (s 15). If there was a delivery failure , the system would have notified the
sender and no notification was received by the Claimant. This attempt to lie to The
Honorable Court is vexatious.

In respect of paragraph 7(b), Mr Chi discussed with both Mr Kandasamy and The Claimant.
Mr Chi even complained about having to discuss with two people and than the Claimant
suggested an email to be sent.

In respect of paragraph 8(a)(b), Mr Kandasamy himself has communicated with Mr Chi

with regards to the Renovation Grace period. The Claimant affirms Mr Chi clearly told the
Claimant not to add the topic about “RENOVATION GRACE PERIOD” in the email.

In respect of paragraph 9(a)(b)(c), The lease agreement contravenes The Code of Conduct
of Retail Premises in Singapore as The lease agreement was prepared by the Defendant
and Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. never instructed any changes in the lease agreement thus
no Legal fees was to be borne by the Tenant. The tenant is supposed to bear the stamping
fees only. The Defendant has no right to seek reimbursement of 50% of legal fees.(refer
diagram below)

In respect of paragraph 10(a)(b)(c), The Defendant was in negotiation with the claimant and
never replied till the invoice was emailed to Claimant. Mr Chi than spoke to the Claimant
over the phone without disputing The Claimant being the authorized person and The
Claimant proceeded to reply via email again. The email sent by the Claimant was never
replied till 5th April 2024.

In respect of paragraph 11(a)(b)(c), Mr Chi never called the Claimant in reference to the
rent due for April 2024 but made an appointment with Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. to
negotiate the rent for the leased premises. Even than there were no disputes regarding the
authorized person for Aruna Minimart. The appointment was made by The Defendant with
the Claimant over the phone. No suggestions to terminate the contract was made by Mr
Kandasamy but suggested by Mr Chi himself .The Defendant who is the authorized person
and successor is also referred to as the tenant in accordance to the lease agreement.

In respect of paragraph 12(a)(b), The Claimaint is the aythorized person for Aruna
Grandmart Pte.Ltd. and was repeatedly informed to Mr Chi during the meeting by Mr
Kandasamy. There was no proposal by Mr Kandasamy of an early termination to Mr Chi.

In respect of paragraph 13, Mr Chi admits to receiving the email from the Claimant but
denies breaching the laws in Singapore. Mr Chi suggested the deduction of the deposit for
the premises without the approval of the Claimant as the authorized person for aruna
Grandmart Pte. Ltd. .

In respect of paragraph 14, The invoice for the month of May 2024 does not become a reply
to the email sent by the Claimant as it is not relevant to the context of the email.

In respect to paragraph 15, The paragraph 3 of The Defence has been clarified and
rebutted. The authorized person and successor is allowed to take legal action and Aruna
Grandmart Pte. Ltd. has approved in writing of MC/Oc 3133/2024.

In Respect of paragraph 16,17,18 , The cause of action is due to harassment and

interruption to the business due to the debts owed by the leased unit. The Defendant has
leased a premise which hindered the process of conducting the said business in the
premises due to debtors. The lease agreement also restricts the use of premises to a
supermarket. There is no secure and safe environment to conduct Business in the said
premises by the Clamant due to debtors demanding the return of supplies from the
Claimant and not the pervious tenant. The suppliers and debtors clearly explained its due
to the unit number and address of the leased premises and not due to the comapny Aruna
Grandmart Pte. Ltd. .

In respect of paragraph 19, The Defendants actions contradicts The Defence filed and The
Defendant has profusely tried to mislead the court in this Defence filed.

In respect of paragraph 20, The Defendant has tried to manipulate the Court and fabricated
abbreviations not used by The Claimant , intending to maliciously commit false
representation in this Defence. The Claimant has sufficient documents to affirm this claim
is not frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. Supporting documents
have been submitted and affidavits from Mr Kandasamy and Mrs Kandasamy who is the
director of Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. Will be submitted. The Defendant has no respect for
the court and The Claimant has proven diligence, by alerting The Honorable Court of the
underhand techniques used by the Defendant in this Reply to The Defence. The Defence
upon breaches in the Code of Conduct for Retail Premises in Singapore defiantly denies all
claims, including the return of the three months refundable deposit. The arrogance shown
to prove dishonesty will prevail is unjustifiable.

The Claimant prays the intervention of The Courts of Singapore and the legal system will
resolve this dispute and The Claimant stands firms on The Originating Claims with the
reinforcement of fraudulent and malicious actions by The Defence in The Defence filed.
The Claimant prays to the Court to approve the Originating Claims with Costs.

Thank you.

Dated 10th May 2024.

I , the Director of Kudikaran Pte. Ltd., Authorised person for Aruna Grandmart Pte. Ltd. And
Successor of Aruna Minimart, The Claimant certify that all the statements made above are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature of Claimant

Kelvin Sunderesan S/O Retchagadas

S8323357E