{"id":299788,"date":"2023-08-22T09:00:44","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T03:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=299788"},"modified":"2023-08-25T10:34:34","modified_gmt":"2023-08-25T05:04:34","slug":"singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","title":{"rendered":"Singapore Court&#8217;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#8217; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\na:hover {\n  color: blue;\n  font-weight: bold;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<h4 style=\"background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(121, 164, 210));\">Understanding the Singapore Court&#8217;s landmark ruling<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In a significant decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">UCO Bank<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Green Mint Pte. Ltd.<\/span><a id=\"fnref1\" href=\"#fn1\" title=\"1. 2023 SGHC 72.\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a>, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded its inherent powers to assess the plaintiff&#8217;s claim on merits in the default of a defence. The Singapore Court rendered this judgment on the merits in order for the plaintiff to be able to enforce the judgment in India, unlike the ordinary case where the courts deliver an ex parte judgment on the defendant&#8217;s failure to file its defence. This decision exemplifies the challenges that might occur when a plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment. It also put emphasis on seeking a well-reasoned court decision that may be a necessary step to strengthen the plaintiff&#8217;s standing if a judgment must be enforced in a foreign jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The facts of the case are such that pursuant to a Facility Agreement, the plaintiff, UCO Bank, Singapore Branch was to disburse a certain sum as credit facility to the defendants in return of which personal guarantees were executed to keep the plaintiff indemnified against any loss. However, on a successful grant of facilities by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to make payment, which led to the initiation of a suit against the Director of the defendant Company i.e. Green Mint Pte. Ltd., Mr Gaurav, seeking the sum due along with interest. During the proceedings, the defendant failed to enter an appearance but subsequently clarified during a pre-trial conference that he does not wish to file a defence. Hence, the Court while observing the plaintiff&#8217;s entitlement to a judgment on merits framed the following issues: First, whether the court has the authority to hear a claim on its merits when the defendant has failed to defend. Second, if the court possesses such authority, is it proper to use it in this case? Third, presuming that such a power is appropriate, whether the plaintiff has satisfied its burden of demonstrating its claim for judgment to be entered in its favour on the merits?<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(121, 164, 210));\">Comparative analysis: Singapore versus India&#8217;s approach to inherent powers<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Singapore Court gave its decision in favour of the plaintiff upon the reasoning that the court has inherent powers to hear such claims. It also discussed that it is essential to keep in mind that the term &#8220;inherent powers&#8221; should not be confused with the term &#8220;inherent jurisdiction&#8221;. Theoretically, the terms &#8220;jurisdiction&#8221; and &#8220;powers&#8221; are separable by arguing that jurisdiction is a substantive power to hear and determine a matter whereas powers, in contrast, are simply incidental; procedural devices that are used by the court to effect its jurisdiction.<a id=\"fnref2\" href=\"#fn2\" title=\"2. Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, &#8220;The Inherent Jurisdiction and its Limits&#8221; (2013) 13 Otago Law Review 107.\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a> A Court may have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute but may not have the power to grant a suitable remedy. This distinction has been given various meanings by a lot of common law jurisdictions; however, the Singapore courts have observed that both these terms are different but related concepts, and both mean &#8220;authority&#8221; and &#8220;power&#8221;.<a id=\"fnref3\" href=\"#fn3\" title=\"3. Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, &#8220;The Inherent Jurisdiction and its Limits&#8221; (2013) 13 Otago Law Review 110, 111.\"><sup>3<\/sup><\/a> The courts do not have unlimited &#8220;inherent powers&#8221; and it should only be used to prevent abuse of justice. Furthermore, as the Court of Appeal observed in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, In re<\/span><a id=\"fnref4\" href=\"#fn4\" title=\"4. (2013) 3 SLR 258.\"><sup>4<\/sup><\/a>, there is a distinction between the &#8220;inherent jurisdiction&#8221; of the court and its &#8220;inherent powers&#8221;, the former &#8220;being the court&#8217;s inherent authority to hear a matter&#8221;, while the latter &#8220;being its inherent capacity to give effect to its determination by making or granting the orders or reliefs sought by the successful party to the dispute&#8221;. Therefore, it is the court&#8217;s inherent powers, not its inherent jurisdiction that enables the court to hear a claim on the merits while the defendant is in default of defence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Similarly, in India, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (the Code)<a id=\"fnref5\" href=\"#fn5\" title=\"5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\"><sup>5<\/sup><\/a> expressly defines the term &#8220;inherent powers&#8221; under Section 151<a id=\"fnref6\" href=\"#fn6\" title=\"6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 151.\"><sup>6<\/sup><\/a> and states that the Court shall exercise its inherent powers as may be necessary to ensure justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. However, the Court must take into account two major principles while exercising its inherent powers. The first is that the authority should only be used to further the interests of justice, and the second is that it should prevent misuse of the legal system. In case such power is expressly forbidden by any statute, it shall not be exercised.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(121, 164, 210));\">Shifting paradigm: Judgment on merits versus default judgment<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While the provisions of the Singapore Rules of Court, 2021 (the Rules)<a id=\"fnref7\" href=\"#fn7\" title=\"7. Singapore Rules of Court, 2021.\"><sup>7<\/sup><\/a> contains no specific provision relating to considering the claim on merits, it does specify that the party asserting the claim has to first apply for an ex parte order under Order 6 Rule 7 of the Rules for a default judgment. It also specifies a mandatory condition for the plaintiff under Order 2 Rule 6, to prove that the original application has been duly served to the defendant. Even though this provision does not specifically say that the courts may grant the plaintiff a judgment on merits, the enforceability standards upheld by common law States cannot be disputed. According to the common law principles, as widely followed, a foreign judgment must be final and conclusive in order to be enforceable.<a id=\"fnref8\" href=\"#fn8\" title=\"8. Barbara Kulzer, &#8220;Some Aspects of Enforceability of Foreign Judgments: A Comparative Summary&#8221; (1966) 16 Buffalo Law Review 84.\"><sup>8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the contrary, the law in India is amply clear on the scenario where there is a default of defence i.e. the Court shall proceed ex parte. According to Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523107\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">20 Rule 5<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Code<\/a><a id=\"fnref9\" href=\"#fn9\" title=\"9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 20 R. 5.\"><sup>9<\/sup><\/a>, it is incumbent on the courts to deliver a judgment on merits notwithstanding any reasoning to the contrary whatsoever. Simply put, a judgment should contain reasons and must be in conformity with the provisions of Section 2(9) CPC<a id=\"fnref10\" href=\"#fn10\" title=\"10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 2(9).\"><sup>10<\/sup><\/a> as was also observed in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Meenakshisundaram Textiles<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Valliammal Textiles Ltd.<\/span><a id=\"fnref11\" href=\"#fn11\" title=\"11. 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 355.\"><sup>11<\/sup><\/a>. However, the Court shall not automatically rule in favour of the plaintiff in case the defendant does not want to file a defence. This would certainly not mean that the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff against himself. To ascertain a valid decree on merits, the principle of &#8220;dominus litus&#8221; comes into play here which means that the person who derives benefit out of the suit holds the ultimate responsibility of managing and proving its own case. The initial onus is always on the plaintiff to make out a case which entitles him to relief.<a id=\"fnref12\" href=\"#fn12\" title=\"12. Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558.\"><sup>12<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, the parties to a suit must stand on their own legs and it is the responsibility of the party taking a specific plea to prove it by way of producing necessary evidence.<a id=\"fnref13\" href=\"#fn13\" title=\"13. Suresh Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1572.\"><sup>13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Singapore Court in the present scenario have also considered the position taken by the English courts in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Berliner Bank AG<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Karageorgis<\/span><a id=\"fnref14\" href=\"#fn14\" title=\"14. (1996) 1 Lloyd&#8217;s Rep 426.\"><sup>14<\/sup><\/a> which was also further referred to in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Habib Bank Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Central Bank of Sudan<\/span><a id=\"fnref15\" href=\"#fn15\" title=\"15. (2007) 1 WLR 470.\"><sup>15<\/sup><\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Eurasia Sports Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Tsai<\/span><a id=\"fnref16\" href=\"#fn16\" title=\"16. (2018) 1 WLR 6089.\"><sup>16<\/sup><\/a>. The Courts in these decisions have observed that a court has inherent power to deliver a judgment on merits in case of a defendant&#8217;s failure to either appear or file a defence. The relevance of a judgment on merits was also emphasised in terms of enforceability over a mere judgment on default.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(121, 164, 210));\">Exploring the benefits and challenges for Indian business<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Indian courts may gain a lot from adopting this Singapore Court decision.<a id=\"fnref17\" href=\"#fn17\" title=\"17. UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd., 2023 SGHC 72.\"><sup>17<\/sup><\/a> Diverging from the ordinary route of an ex parte decision which involves a plaintiff going through the discovery stage and the pre-trial affidavits of evidence-in-chief stage, Indian businesses seeking a swift closure along with a cost-effective procedure can certainly benefit from this approach adopted by the Singapore Court. This will also encourage a predictable judicial framework as now the parties would know that the judgments would be based on merits in case of a default in defence, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions by the party ascertaining the claim.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While this ruling is a welcome move for banks and corporations, they could also encounter certain challenges on their path to adopt a new procedure. The plaintiff would now need to make sure that its case is best presented in order to win a judgment on the merits of its claim in the absence of the defendant, which could create some challenges in the form of time and resource allocation. Additionally, the inherent powers of the court could be questioned as the certainty in the delivery of judgment in case of default of defence can prompt various unpredictable countermeasures from the defendant.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"background-image: linear-gradient(to left, #FFFFFF, rgb(121, 164, 210));\">Concluding remarks<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Despite not having a particular provision that addressed the situation in the current case, the Singapore Court upheld the fundamental principles of the country. The Singapore Rules of Court, 2021 were established with the express intent of not only effectively laying out the procedures for civil and appellate proceedings, but also of ensuring fair access to justice, swift resolution of cases, cost-effective work, effective use of court resources, and results that are just and practical as well as meet the needs of the parties. Additionally, a judgment on merits would also assist the Court in further setting aside proceedings, if any arise. It may be argued that the ordinary route i.e. the ex parte trial route would have ensured better procedural compliance and would have also ensured that all the evidence was on the stage while delivering a judgment on merits. But with this decision<a id=\"fnref18\" href=\"#fn18\" title=\"18. UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd., 2023 SGHC 72.\"><sup>18<\/sup><\/a> the Singapore Court has not only prevented abuse of procedural irregularities by the defendant but also prevented injustice that would have been caused to the plaintiff while enforcing the judgment in Indian jurisdiction. The Singapore Court has voluntarily taken into account a shorter route while still adhering to the fundamental common law norms. This approach provides a path for easy enforceability in other jurisdictions and also encourages informed and well-considered decisions by the parties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr\/>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">&#8224;Practising Advocate and Associate at DRSB Law Chambers, New Delhi. Author can be reached at &lt;<a href=\"mailto:sanjanasachdeva7@gmail.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">sanjanasachdeva7@gmail.com<\/a>&gt;.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">&#8224;&#8224;4th year student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (D<span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">SNLU<\/span>), Visakhapatnam.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn1\" href=\"#fnref1\">1.<\/a> 2023 SGHC 72.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn2\" href=\"#fnref2\">2.<\/a> Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, &#8220;The Inherent Jurisdiction and its Limits&#8221; (2013) 13 Otago Law Review 107.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn3\" href=\"#fnref3\">3.<\/a> Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, &#8220;The Inherent Jurisdiction and its Limits&#8221; (2013) 13 Otago Law Review 110, 111.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn4\" href=\"#fnref4\">4.<\/a> (2013) 3 SLR 258.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn5\" href=\"#fnref5\">5.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/fW5E2p7z\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn6\" href=\"#fnref6\">6.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, S. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523743\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">151<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn7\" href=\"#fnref7\">7.<\/a> Singapore Rules of Court, 2021.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn8\" href=\"#fnref8\">8.<\/a> Barbara Kulzer, &#8220;Some Aspects of Enforceability of Foreign Judgments: A Comparative Summary&#8221; (1966) 16 Buffalo Law Review 84.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn9\" href=\"#fnref9\">9.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, Or. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523107\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">20 R. 5<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn10\" href=\"#fnref10\">10.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, S. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523757\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2(9)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn11\" href=\"#fnref11\">11.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/AOg06h38\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2011 SCC OnLine Mad 355<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn12\" href=\"#fnref12\">12.<\/a> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Anil Rishi<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurbaksh Singh<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/G045annq\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2006) 5 SCC 558<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn13\" href=\"#fnref13\">13.<\/a> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Suresh Khan<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Jharkhand<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/G36eOtW1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1572<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn14\" href=\"#fnref14\">14.<\/a> (1996) 1 Lloyd&#8217;s Rep 426.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn15\" href=\"#fnref15\">15.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1s37UIQP\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2007) 1 WLR 470<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn16\" href=\"#fnref16\">16.<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/OHjX51Q0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2018) 1 WLR 6089<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn17\" href=\"#fnref17\">17.<\/a> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">UCO Bank<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Green Mint Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2023 SGHC 72.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn18\" href=\"#fnref18\">18.<\/a> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">UCO Bank<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Green Mint Pte. Ltd.<\/span>, 2023 SGHC 72.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Sanjana Sachdev&#8224; and Sanskriti Sinha&#8224;&#8224;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":299790,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[55780,35092,13031,3686,60465,60464],"class_list":["post-299788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-facility-agreement","tag-inherent-jurisdiction","tag-inherent-powers","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-republic-of-singapore","tag-singapore-courts-landmark"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Singapore Court&#039;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#039; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Singapore Court&#039;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#039; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-22T03:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-25T05:04:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Singapore Court&#039;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#039; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/\",\"name\":\"Singapore Court's Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts' Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-22T03:30:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-25T05:04:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"singapore court's landmark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Singapore Court&#8217;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#8217; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Singapore Court's Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts' Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment | SCC Times","description":"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Singapore Court's Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts' Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment","og_description":"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-22T03:30:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-25T05:04:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Singapore Court's Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts' Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","name":"Singapore Court's Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts' Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-22T03:30:44+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-25T05:04:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"In a significant decision in UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.1, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore Court) expanded","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"singapore court's landmark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Singapore Court&#8217;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#8217; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":274630,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/28\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-jurisdiction-of-arbitral-tribunal-is-only-revived-to-the-extent-of-the-remission-ordered\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":0},"title":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore | Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal is only revived to the extent of the remission ordered","author":"Editor","date":"September 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Apart from the remission ordered, there is no basis on which a party in CKH's position or the Tribunal itself can seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration.\"","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244138,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/19\/divorce\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Permanent residents of Singapore, residing there since 2012, wife seeks an injunction for suit filed in Singapore by husband regarding matrimonial dispute. HC rejects appeal. Why? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ., upheld the Family Court\u2019s decision and directed the parties approach the local Court of Singapore with regard to sorting out their matrimonial dispute.\u00a0 Issue Present appeal was filed seeking a direction against the Family Court\u2019s decision, wherein\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":275669,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/15\/high-court-of-the-republic-of-singapore-amount-paid-as-personal-commission-liable-to-be-returned-if-transaction-is-called-off-because-of-fraud\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":2},"title":"High Court of the Republic of Singapore | Amount paid as personal commission liable to be returned if transaction is called off because of fraud","author":"Editor","date":"October 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 High Court of the Republic of Singapore | The bench comprising of Belinda Ang Saw Ean*, Woo Bih Li and Quentin Loh, JAD held that advance commission paid in relation to the averred transaction is a part of the losses suffered due to fraud carried out in that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/High-Court-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/High-Court-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/High-Court-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/High-Court-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/High-Court-of-the-Republic-of-Singapore-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283477,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/09\/evidence-witnesses-privilege-marital-privilege\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":3},"title":"Records kept by companies fall outside the scope of Section 124(1) Evidence Act; Can\u2019t be regarded as spousal communications within meaning of Section 124(1): High Court of the Republic of Singapore","author":"Editor","date":"February 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of the Republic of Singapore: While deciding a case related to marital privilege, Chua Lee Ming* J. held that records kept by companies fell outside the scope of S. 124(1) of the Evidence Act and the same cannot be regarded as spousal communications providing marital privilege within the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"High Court of the Republic of Singapore","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image103.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":291137,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/03\/subramanian-swamy-defamation-case-madras-hc-gives-heads-up-to-singapore-company\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":4},"title":"Foreign company, even though fully owned by Indian Company is not amenable to jurisdiction of Indian Court: Madras High Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court allowed Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited, a foreign company to proceed with the defamation case against renowned politician and economist Dr. Subramanian Swamy","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/25\/abuse-of-process-and-denial-of-justice-only-two-grounds-for-refusing-a-stay-in-cases-of-an-ejc-clause\/","url_meta":{"origin":299788,"position":5},"title":"Abuse of process and denial of justice: Only two grounds for refusing a stay in cases of an EJC clause","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Singapore: A Five Judge Bench comprising of Sundaresh Menon, CJ., Andrew Phan Boon Leong, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang, Steven Chong, JJ., allowed an appeal filed against the order of the High Court whereby the High Court refused to grant a stay in favour of the appellants.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299788\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/299790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}