PALANIANDY A/L SADAYAN AAKASH GREEN ENERGY SDN. BHD.

PALANIANDY A/L SADAYAN AAKASH GREEN ENERGY SDN. BHD.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the Court of Appeal order to file his defence within the prescribed 14 days, filed the defence one day late without obtaining leave or offering any explanation for the delay, the subsequent judgment in default was thus regularly obtained, and the appellant failed to disclose any defence on the merits in his affidavits to justify setting aside the JID.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Palaniandy A/L Sadayan; Respondent/3rd Defendant: Aakash Green Energy Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Regu A/L Vedy Kaundan; 2nd Defendant: Mani Arasi A/P Chandran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 February 2024
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-135-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Hearing on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default, Setting Aside Judgment in Default, Delay and Extension of Time, Counterclaim, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Civil Litigation Judgment in Default Setting Aside Judgment in Default Delay and Extension of Time Counterclaim Compliance With Court Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palaniandy A/L Sadayan

Appellant/plaintiff

Aakash Green Energy Sdn Bhd

Respondent/3rd Defendant

Regu A/L Vedy Kaundan

1st Defendant

Mani Arasi A/P Chandran

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Hearing on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in default (JID) was regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether the appellant filed his defence within the time ordered by the Court of Appeal or obtained leave for late filing
  3. 3 Whether the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the Court of Appeal order to file his defence within the prescribed 14 days, filed the defence one day late without obtaining leave or offering any explanation for the delay, the subsequent judgment in default was thus regularly obtained, and the appellant failed to disclose any defence on the merits in his affidavits to justify setting aside the JID.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs