ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD 3. BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD 3. BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on the evidence and failed to show solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of the RM2,000,000 fixed deposit; although the asset is within jurisdiction, the plaintiff did not prove entitlement to interlocutory Mareva relief and did not discharge duty of full and frank disclosure; Mareva injunction refused and costs awarded to defendants.

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
19 August 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCC-245-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Mareva Injunction Application (commercial) / Interim Mareva Injunction Application; Judgment on Application at High Court (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for Mareva injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Interim Relief, Security/memorandum of Deposit, Fixed Deposit, Facility Agreement, Debt Dispute, Arbitration Clause
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Commercial Injunctions Banking and Finance Mareva Injunction Interim Relief Security/memorandum of Deposit Fixed Deposit +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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

Mareva Injunction Application (commercial) / Interim Mareva Injunction Application; Judgment on Application at High Court (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff has a good arguable case that RM2,000,000 is a loan owed by 2nd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant has assets within the jurisdiction to be frozen
  3. 3 Whether there is a real and solid risk of dissipation of the RM2,000,000 FD prior to judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on the evidence and failed to show solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of the RM2,000,000 fixed deposit; although the asset is within jurisdiction, the plaintiff did not prove entitlement to interlocutory Mareva relief and did not discharge duty of full and frank disclosure; Mareva injunction refused and costs awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to 2nd Defendant RM10000