ALTRATEC SDN BHD 1. ) THONG YOUNG KOON 2. ) THIAGU A/L NYANASELAN 3. ) CHELVEE A/P MARIMUTHOO 4. ) Tetuan Pushpalingam, Kasmani & Partners 5. ) Kasmani Bt Baharuddin 6. ) Krishnan, Puspalingam 7. ) Ragunath A/l Kesavan 8. ) PENGARAH TANAH D
The court found the counterclaim against the 6th Defendant inadequately pleaded and unsupported by any credible particular or evidential shred of fraud, conspiracy or cheating; the pleaded case was vague, embarrassing and 'obviously unsustainable' such that O.18 r.19 permitted summary dismissal. Accordingly Enclosure 29 (the counterclaim against the 6th Defendant) was dismissed and costs awarded.
- Citation
- BA-23NCvC-60-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff (main Suit): ALTRATEC SDN BHD; Defendant (vendor): THONG YOUNG KOON; Plaintiff (counterclaim): THIAGU A/L NYANASELAN; Plaintiff (counterclaim): CHELVEE A/P MARIMUTHOO; 6th Defendant (counterclaim): RAGUNATH A/L A. KESAVAN
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2023
- Case Number
- BA-23NCvC-60-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (land Dispute and Professional Conduct Counterclaim) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012 (decision)
- Outcome
- Application allowed; counterclaim against the 6th Defendant (Ragunath A/L A. Kesavan) struck out
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out Application, Fraud and Conspiracy Allegations, Subdivision and Access Road Dispute, Solicitor Professional Conduct, Caveat
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ALTRATEC SDN BHD
Plaintiff (main Suit)
THONG YOUNG KOON
Defendant (vendor)
THIAGU A/L NYANASELAN
Plaintiff (counterclaim)
CHELVEE A/P MARIMUTHOO
Plaintiff (counterclaim)
RAGUNATH A/L A. KESAVAN
6th Defendant (counterclaim)
Procedural Posture
Civil (land Dispute and Professional Conduct Counterclaim) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012 (decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the counterclaim against the 6th Defendant (solicitor) disclosed a reasonable cause of action
- 2 Whether allegations of fraud, conspiracy and cheating were pleaded with sufficient particulars
- 3 Whether the counterclaim was plain and obviously unsustainable under O.18 r.19 Rules of Court 2012
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the counterclaim against the 6th Defendant inadequately pleaded and unsupported by any credible particular or evidential shred of fraud, conspiracy or cheating; the pleaded case was vague, embarrassing and 'obviously unsustainable' such that O.18 r.19 permitted summary dismissal. Accordingly Enclosure 29 (the counterclaim against the 6th Defendant) was dismissed and costs awarded.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; counterclaim against the 6th Defendant (Ragunath A/L A. Kesavan) struck out
Orders
- Enclosure 29 (counterclaim against 6th Defendant) dismissed
- Costs awarded to 6th Defendant in the sum of RM5000.00 (subject to fi alokatur/taxation)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment