G VENTURE ADVISORY SDN BHD 1. ) TEBOOK HOUSE SDN BHD 2. ) NOOR JEEHAN BINTI ADAM PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Seri Almizan Enterpirse 2. ) Koperasi Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Nasional Berhad

G VENTURE ADVISORY SDN BHD 1. ) TEBOOK HOUSE SDN BHD 2. ) NOOR JEEHAN BINTI ADAM PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) Seri Almizan Enterpirse 2. ) Koperasi Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Nasional Berhad

Summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff because the pleaded documents (investment agreement, personal guarantee and settlement confirming liability) established a clear entitlement, the stamp‑duty objection was technical and capable of regularisation and did not defeat admissibility or the debt, and the Defendants failed to raise any credible or bona fide triable issues to defeat the claim.

Citation
BA-22NCC-243-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: G Venture Advisory Sdn Bhd; First Defendant: Tebook House Sdn Bhd; Second Defendant: Noor Jeehan binti Adam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCC-243-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Hearing and Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application allowed; summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Personal Guarantee, Admissibility of Unstamped Instruments, Stamp Duty Remedial Payment, Duress Defence
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Tax (stamp Duty) Summary Judgment Personal Guarantee Admissibility of Unstamped Instruments Stamp Duty Remedial Payment +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G Venture Advisory Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Tebook House Sdn Bhd

First Defendant

Noor Jeehan binti Adam

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Hearing and Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants raised any triable issue to defeat summary judgment under Order 14
  2. 2 Whether the investment agreement and personal guarantee are admissible/enforceable despite lack of stamp duty under Stamp Act 1949 s52(1)
  3. 3 Whether alleged duress, misrepresentation or third‑party non‑performance afford a bona fide defence to liability under the agreement and guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff because the pleaded documents (investment agreement, personal guarantee and settlement confirming liability) established a clear entitlement, the stamp‑duty objection was technical and capable of regularisation and did not defeat admissibility or the debt, and the Defendants failed to raise any credible or bona fide triable issues to defeat the claim.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff for RM500000.00
  • Each of the Defendants is ordered to pay costs of RM2,500.00 to the Plaintiff