ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 497077-A) 1. MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 40444-V) 2. MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1250727-K) 3. BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 16562-K) 4. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BE

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 497077-A) 1. MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 40444-V) 2. MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1250727-K) 3. BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 16562-K) 4. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BE

The First Agreement, read in its plain terms, obligated the 2nd Defendant to refund RM1,782,000 to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff failed to plead fraud, illegality or sufficient particulars to justify lifting the corporate veil; the Plaintiff impermissibly relied on unpleaded facts in affidavits; accordingly the claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-245-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD; 3rd Defendant: BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD; 4th Defendant: CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCC-245-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Contract and Corporate Law (ncc) / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC and Order 15 Rule 6(2)
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Lifting Corporate Veil, Breach of Contract, Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Pleadings and Reliance on Affidavits, Interpretation of Commercial Agreements
Company Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Equity Banking Law Lifting Corporate Veil Breach of Contract Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD

1st Defendant

MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

3rd Defendant

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Contract and Corporate Law (ncc) / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC and Order 15 Rule 6(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether First Agreement imposes an obligation on the 1st Defendant to repay RM1,782,000
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil of the 2nd Defendant can be lifted to make the 1st Defendant liable
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff can rely on facts not pleaded to resist a striking out application

Ratio Decidendi

The First Agreement, read in its plain terms, obligated the 2nd Defendant to refund RM1,782,000 to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff failed to plead fraud, illegality or sufficient particulars to justify lifting the corporate veil; the Plaintiff impermissibly relied on unpleaded facts in affidavits; accordingly the claim against the 1st Defendant is unsustainable and was struck out under Order 18 r.19 as frivolous or an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Strike out the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim as against the 1st Defendant (Maju Holdings Sdn Bhd)
  • Remove the 1st Defendant as a party to this action in respect of the struck out claims