Sacked MD challenges Singapore JV dismissal in Indian court

Asaithambi Manickam spent more than two decades building a career at Woh Hup, a Singapore-based construction firm. He joined in 2004 as an engineer, was seconded to a joint venture partnership, and eventually became managing director of L&W Construction Private Limited, the India-based entity created by that partnership between Woh Hup and Lee Kim Tah. In that role, he oversaw major construction projects for institutional developers like CapitaLand and Mapletree. Then, in June 2026, he was terminated. Now he is fighting to get his job back in a Bengaluru court.

On September 11, Manickam filed suit in the city and civil sessions court in Bengaluru, naming L&W Construction, its directors Teoh Hang Boon and Eugene Yong, and the Singapore holding company Lee Kim Tah–Woh Hup Pte Ltd as respondents. He is asking the court to overturn his dismissal, declaring it a violation of natural justice and due process. He also wants the court to nullify any steps taken as a result of his termination and to affirm his right to continue as a director. A hearing is scheduled for September 21, when the court will consider his application for interim orders—specifically, to block the termination from taking effect and to prevent interference with his management and directorship roles.

The dismissal, however, sits at the center of a larger corporate dispute between the two joint venture partners. Lee Kim Tah has filed its own lawsuit in the Bengaluru commercial court, accusing Woh Hup chairman Kim Yong and his brother Eugene of breaching their fiduciary duties to L&W. According to Lee Kim Tah's complaint, an independent audit conducted by KPMG India uncovered serious financial irregularities: the use of fictitious invoices, improper payments, contracts entered into with connected parties, and misuse of company funds and resources. The audit reportedly recommended Manickam's termination and the initiation of recovery action against him.

Yet despite these findings, Manickam remained employed until June 2026. He had been placed on paid leave since January 2025. Lee Kim Tah alleges that the Yong brothers stalled action against him and selectively disclosed or concealed material information and advice concerning the audit findings. Last month, a judge returned Lee Kim Tah's plaint without addressing its merits, ruling that the commercial court was not the appropriate forum for the dispute. That decision is now on appeal to the Karnataka High Court.

Manickam's defense is straightforward: he denies all allegations. In his suit, he contends that his termination was unlawful and procedurally defective. He says he was never provided with the audit report or the underlying documents that formed the basis for his dismissal. He also frames the action against him as collateral damage in a larger shareholder dispute between the Singapore-based partners. The question before the court on September 21 is whether Manickam's procedural claims have enough weight to warrant interim relief—whether, in other words, a man can be removed from his position without seeing the evidence against him, even if that evidence comes from a reputable auditor.

The case reveals a common tension in joint ventures: when partners disagree on how to handle an employee accused of wrongdoing, the employee can find himself caught between competing corporate interests. Manickam's years of service and his role overseeing major projects for blue-chip developers count for something in his narrative. But so do the KPMG findings, if they are as serious as Lee Kim Tah describes. The court will have to weigh procedural fairness against the substance of what the audit allegedly discovered—and decide whether the gap between the audit's recommendations and the actual termination, a gap of more than a year, tells us something important about the credibility of either side.