PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BEYOND HALLMARK SDN. BHD. PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN YAHNASEGARAN S GOVINDASAMY

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN BEYOND HALLMARK SDN. BHD. PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN YAHNASEGARAN S GOVINDASAMY

The application (Encl.5) was dismissed because it was fundamentally defective for citing wrong and revoked provisions, the applicant failed to regularise the defects or to comply with mandatory statutory requirements (notably s3(1)(i) and s3(2)(ii) IA and relevant IR rules) to dispute the amount in the bankruptcy notice within the prescribed time, and the BN was validly issued based on a final consent judgment which the court will not reopen in these proceedings.

Citation
WA-29NCC-836-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Beyond Hallmark Sdn. Bhd.; Judgment Debtor: Yahnasegaran S Govindasamy
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 April 2023
Case Number
WA-29NCC-836-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Summons in Chambers — Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice
Outcome
Application in Encl.5 dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Notice, Consent Judgment Enforcement, Setting Aside Procedure, Procedural Compliance Under Insolvency Act, Insolvency Rules
Source Language
Malay/English
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Judgment Enforcement Bankruptcy Notice Consent Judgment Enforcement Setting Aside Procedure Procedural Compliance Under Insolvency Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beyond Hallmark Sdn. Bhd.

Judgment Creditor

Yahnasegaran S Govindasamy

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Summons in Chambers — Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether application to set aside BN is defective for citing erroneous provisions of law
  2. 2 Whether Judgment Creditor was entitled to issue Notice of Default and Demand
  3. 3 Whether issuing default notices within short period was unreasonable or unconscionable

Ratio Decidendi

The application (Encl.5) was dismissed because it was fundamentally defective for citing wrong and revoked provisions, the applicant failed to regularise the defects or to comply with mandatory statutory requirements (notably s3(1)(i) and s3(2)(ii) IA and relevant IR rules) to dispute the amount in the bankruptcy notice within the prescribed time, and the BN was validly issued based on a final consent judgment which the court will not reopen in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application in Encl.5 dismissed

Orders

  • Application in Encl.5 dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by the Judgment Debtor subject to allocatur