KARYA LAGENDA SDN BHD v KEJURUTERAAN BINTAI KINDENKO SDN BHD & ANOR [2007] 6 CLJ 18 (CA)
The Firm on behalf of CIMB Bank (2nd Respondent) filed an interpleader action due to adverse claims between the Appellant and First Respondent. The bank guarantee to which the appellant and the first respondent were parties was a distinct legal document from the building contract, which was an agreement between the first and second respondents. […]
RE SATERAS RESOURCES (MALAYSIA) BHD
[2006] 2 CLJ 489 (CA) By not naming the applicant as a respondent, in which he is one of the parties in the court below, and supposedly one party in the proceedings, his status and statutory rights will be affected by any substantive decisions in seduction. By not being named as a respondent in this seduction, […]
RE SATERAS RESOURCES (MALAYSIA) BHD
[2006] 2 CLJ 489 (CA) By not citing the interveners as a respondents, being the interveners in the court below, and necessarily a party in the proceeding, their status and legal rights would be directly affected by any substantive decision in the appeal. By not having been cited as respondents in this appeal, they would be […]
FIMA SECURITIES SDN BHD v. ROSE ALIZA RAMLI
[2005] 8 CLJ 113 The defendant elected not to call any evidence when the evidential burden of proof had shifted to her. The defendant’s argument that she had nothing at all to do with the transactions and that she had no knowledge of them seemed absurd since the remisier responsible for conducting the transactions in […]
SATERAS RESOURCES (MALAYSIA) BERHAD v. SOTHILINGAM K SUBRAMANIAM & 8 OTHER
[2005] 1 LNS 322 The Court decided that at the time this application is heard there is no proposed scheme of arrangement and compromise as intended under section 176 (10A) (a) and therefore a restraining order is not required to ‘formalize’ by the Applicant and his Creditors as referred to under section 176 (10A) (b) of the Act. This […]
RE SATERAS RESOURCES (MALAYSIA) BHD
[2005] 6 CLJ 194 (HC) The petitioner sought the Court’s sanction for a scheme of arrangement and compromise pursuant to s.176 (3) and (4) of the Companies Act 1965. Datuk Ganesan for the interveners opposed the petition on grounds that (i) the petitioner’s Explanatory Statement was misleading, inaccurate and did not contain sufficient information to […]
NG CHOOI KOR v. ISYODA (M) SDN BHD – [2004] 1 LNS 567
This is a claim for goods sold and delivered. Defendant was unable to call a witness after reasonable time had been taken to find him, the admissibility of the witness affidavit under s. 32(1)(c) Evidence Act were used. The Court held that it was quite satisfied on reading the affidavit that every statement was based […]
MOHAMED HANIFA MOHAMED YUSOFF v SIKANDAR BATCH ABDUL MAJEED – [2002] 7 CLJ 77
This case laid down the principle that the effect of an annulment of an adjudication of bankruptcy is, as Stirling LJ said In Re Keet, to “wipe out the bankruptcy altogether, and put the bankrupt in the same position as if there had been no adjudication”. Therefore, an annulment of adjudication of bankruptcy under s. 105 (1) […]
NUCLEUS PROPERTIES SDN BHD v SHAMSIAH BINTI HAJI KHATIB – [1998] 1 LNS 154 (HC)
The Firm acted for the defendant. The Court held that there are unexplained questions or uncertainties in the factual assertions of the plaintiff itself. These unexplained questions or uncertainties in addition to the defendant’s denials make it unsafe to grant the orders in a summary judgment, and the matter ought to go to trial.
MOHAMED HANIFA MOHAMED YUSOFF v SIKANDAR BATCH ABDUL MAJEED
[2002] 7 CLJ 77 This case laid down the principle that the effect of an annulment of an adjudication of bankruptcy is, as Stirling LJ said In Re Keet, to “wipe out the bankruptcy altogether, and put the bankrupt in the same position as if there had been no adjudication”. Therefore, an annulment of adjudication of […]