ARVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM DEVARAJAN SHIVAKUMAR

ARVEEN RAM A/L SRI RAM DEVARAJAN SHIVAKUMAR

The court held that substituted service was regular and effective, the defendants failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence and provided no satisfactory explanation for an excessive four‑year delay in seeking to set aside the default judgment; res judicata did not bar the action because the present claim involved new facts of alleged fraud discovered in 2015, but that finding did not excuse the defendants' unexplained delay, therefore the appeals were dismissed and the lower court decision was upheld.

Citation
WA-12ANCvC-235-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Arveen Ram A/L Sri Ram; Appellant/perayu: Praveen Ram A/L Sri Ram; Respondent/respondent: Devarajah Shivakumar; Respondent/respondent: Devarajan Shivakumar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 December 2022
Case Number
WA-12ANCvC-235-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment (decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Substituted Service, Res Judicata, Section 29 Limitation Act 1953 (fraud), Resulting Trust, Delay and Laches
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Trusts Fraud Limitation of Actions Setting Aside Default Judgment Substituted Service Res Judicata +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arveen Ram A/L Sri Ram

Appellant/perayu

Praveen Ram A/L Sri Ram

Appellant/perayu

Devarajah Shivakumar

Respondent/respondent

Devarajan Shivakumar

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment (decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the substituted service and order for substituted service were valid and regular
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had a meritorious defence sufficient to set aside a default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the claim is barred by res judicata or functus officio

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that substituted service was regular and effective, the defendants failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence and provided no satisfactory explanation for an excessive four‑year delay in seeking to set aside the default judgment; res judicata did not bar the action because the present claim involved new facts of alleged fraud discovered in 2015, but that finding did not excuse the defendants' unexplained delay, therefore the appeals were dismissed and the lower court decision was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of Sessions Court dated 28.7.2022 upheld
  • Appeals of Defendant‑3 and Defendant‑4 dismissed with costs RM2,500.00 each payable by each appellant, subject to allocatur