MUTAYA SDN BHD 1. ) SURJIT KAUR A/P TEJA SINGH 2. ) JASVINDER SINGH A/L AMARJIT SINGH

MUTAYA SDN BHD 1. ) SURJIT KAUR A/P TEJA SINGH 2. ) JASVINDER SINGH A/L AMARJIT SINGH

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the Second Defendant was in contempt based on his express admissions and continuing failure to comply with the 11.3.2019 order, his failure to seek an extension, and his being bound by earlier pleadings; accordingly the committal order and sanctions (fine and default imprisonment) and dismissal of the application to set aside the consent judgment were justified.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-595-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / First Defendant: Surjit Kaur a/p Teja Singh; Appellant / Second Defendant (contemnor): Jasvinder Singh a/l Amarjit Singh; Respondent / Plaintiff: Mutaya Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 August 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-595-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (contempt of Court / Committal) / Appeal From High Court Order / Grounds of Judgment
Outcome
Second Defendant found in contempt of court; appeal against the committal and the dismissal of the application to set aside the consent judgment was addressed by upholding the High Court's findings and sanctions.
Legal Topics
Committal, Consent Judgment, Non Compliance With Court Order, Contempt, Costs, Mitigation, Procedural Compliance (order 52)
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Land Law Committal Consent Judgment Non Compliance With Court Order Contempt Costs +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Kaur a/p Teja Singh

Appellant / First Defendant

Jasvinder Singh a/l Amarjit Singh

Appellant / Second Defendant (contemnor)

Mutaya Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil (contempt of Court / Committal) / Appeal From High Court Order / Grounds of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant committed civil contempt by failing to comply with the court order dated 11.3.2019
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with procedural requirements of Order 52 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012
  3. 3 Whether asserted uncertainty as to land boundary or prior compulsory acquisition excused non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the Second Defendant was in contempt based on his express admissions and continuing failure to comply with the 11.3.2019 order, his failure to seek an extension, and his being bound by earlier pleadings; accordingly the committal order and sanctions (fine and default imprisonment) and dismissal of the application to set aside the consent judgment were justified.

Court Disposition

Second Defendant found in contempt of court; appeal against the committal and the dismissal of the application to set aside the consent judgment was addressed by upholding the High Court's findings and sanctions.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay a fine of RM35000.00 within 2 months until 11.10.2022
  • In default of payment, one month imprisonment to be imposed