IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY 2. ) ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD

IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY 2. ) ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD

Court concluded the plaintiff's supporting affidavit sufficiently specified the documents, demonstrated belief they relate to matters in question and that D1 and D2 likely have them in their possession/custody/power; discovery was necessary for plaintiff to institute proceedings and to fairly dispose of the matter;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-24NCvC-771-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD; Defendant 1: K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY; Defendant 2: ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (formerly Terra Wave Sdn Bhd)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Case Number
BA-24NCvC-771-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons for Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7 a Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory Application for Discovery — Granted
Outcome
Application for discovery allowed; order in terms granted on 31-03-2022 and judgment dated 07-05-2022 affirming grant
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Order 24 Rule 7 a, Shareholders Agreement Validity, Third Party Discovery, Relevancy Requirement
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Evidence Discovery of Documents Order 24 Rule 7 a Shareholders Agreement Validity Third Party Discovery +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD

Plaintiff

K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY

Defendant 1

ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD (formerly Terra Wave Sdn Bhd)

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons for Discovery Under Order 24 Rule 7 a Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory Application for Discovery — Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff satisfied the relevancy requirement for discovery under Order 24 r.7A
  2. 2 Whether the defendant (D1) is a proper party to rely on clause 11 of the shareholders agreement
  3. 3 Whether the shareholders agreement is void ab initio or a sham

Ratio Decidendi

Court concluded the plaintiff's supporting affidavit sufficiently specified the documents, demonstrated belief they relate to matters in question and that D1 and D2 likely have them in their possession/custody/power; discovery was necessary for plaintiff to institute proceedings and to fairly dispose of the matter; exercise of discretion under Order 24 justified granting the application and ordering discovery in terms.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery allowed; order in terms granted on 31-03-2022 and judgment dated 07-05-2022 affirming grant

Orders

  • D1 and D2 are ordered to produce copies of the specified documents listed in the originating summons (including audited accounts, purchase orders, travel bookings and invoices, payment records and bank statements for specified periods) within 30 days from the order
  • D1 and D2 are ordered to file affidavits in court listing and exhibiting each of the specified documents within 14 days of the order