In The States Courts Of The Republic of Singapore

MC/OC 3133/2024

MC/SUM 1774/2024

Between

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

..Claimant(s)

And

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

..Respondent(s)

AFFIDAVIT

Name of Maker : Kelvin Sunderesan

Supplementary Affidavit Reply

In reply to the application to strike of the Originating Claims, the claimant warns the Defendent
to stop fabricating Lies and only use facts in respect of Court proceedings, not to mislead the
court and ask the court to take action for Contempt of Court.

In Response to Paragraph A, No Reasonable cause of action on Statement of claim.

The Claimant is clearly claiming the 3 months deposit which is refundable unless there are
damages to the property and the Defendant has clearly stated in the intention of deducting the
deposit in contravene to the lease agreement ( Clauses 2.1, 2.1.1 , 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) in the email
sent on 12 April 2024.

The Originating Claim clearly states the Claim amount at the end of the Claim and has attached
the email Dated on the 12th of April 2024.

This itself is a single reasonable cause apart from many in the Originating Claims.

The Defendant has no right to claim uncertainty of the claim as the email has been quoted in
paragraph 21 of the Application to strike out the Originating Claims.

The Claimant has clearly pin pointed the Defendant of Abusing the Process of Court to further
mislead and t waste the precious time of this Court.

In Response to Paragraph B , Abuse of Process of the Court,

The Defendant claims it is in the interest of Justice to strike of the Originating Claim when the
application has been fabricated maliciously with lies which are termed as facts to mislead the
Court and make the Court an accessory to this conspiracy.

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 premises 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.
( The documents has been attached in the originating claim itself) 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 in paragraph
11 in MC/SUM 1774/2024 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.

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.

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 Aruna Minimart Pte.
Ltd. become justified .How can the Court accept such fabrications as true and correct for this
application. Does the Defendant belittle the Courts knowledge or abuses the Process Of the
Court? This act is a breach of the penal code sec 424b itself.
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 can clearly be rebutted by the
electronic mails and whatsapp messages.

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.

The previous tenant refers to Grocer Pte. Ltd. With the Uen Number 202023469G and no one
else.

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 11th March 2024. The Claimant authorized the rental payment for the month
of March 2024.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.
The Claimaint is the authorized 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.

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. .

MC/SUM 1774/2024 has been clarified and rebutted. The Defendant should not fabricate lies
and use the Court and the Courts process as an accessory to this conspiracy. 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.

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 company Aruna Grandmart Pte.
Ltd. .

The Defendants actions contradicts MC/SUM 1774/2024 filed and The Defendant has profusely
tried to mislead the court in this application filed.

The Defendant has tried to manipulate the Court and fabricated abbreviations not used by The
Claimant , intending to maliciously commit false representation in this application MC/SUM
1774/2024. 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. Is 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 application. The Defendant 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 injustifiable.

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 Defendant in the application filed. The Claimant prays
to the Court to Strike off this pllincation MC/SUM 1774/2024 with Costs.
Thank you.

Dated 13th June 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

Sworn / Affirmed by the above mentioned )

Kelvin Sunderesan S/O Retchagadas )

This 13th Day of June 2024 )

At Singapore )

Before Me,

A Commissioner for Oaths