A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM SUBRAMANIAN A/L SAMUGAM

A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM SUBRAMANIAN A/L SAMUGAM

Default judgment was regularly obtained because service was proven; defendant remained inactive for 33 days and failed to provide affidavit evidence or exhibits to substantiate the alleged meritorious defence (cheque, accounting entries, proof of forgery) or to justify delay; no special circumstances shown to warrant stay; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
JA-A52NCC-257-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: A Magendran a/l Arumugam; Defendant: Subramanian a/l Samugam
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 January 2023
Case Number
JA-A52NCC-257-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (application Under Rules 42 & 92)
Outcome
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed on balance of probabilities
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Writ, Delay and Justification, Stay of Execution, Meritorious Defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Banking Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Service of Writ Delay and Justification +2 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Magendran a/l Arumugam

Plaintiff

Subramanian a/l Samugam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (application Under Rules 42 & 92)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment dated 8/9/2022 was regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has justified the delay in taking steps after service
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has a meritorious defence on the merits

Ratio Decidendi

Default judgment was regularly obtained because service was proven; defendant remained inactive for 33 days and failed to provide affidavit evidence or exhibits to substantiate the alleged meritorious defence (cheque, accounting entries, proof of forgery) or to justify delay; no special circumstances shown to warrant stay; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed on balance of probabilities

Orders

  • Application in Encl.8 dismissed
  • Costs on scale to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff