Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd Infologic Pte Ltd & 2 Lg

Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd Infologic Pte Ltd & 2 Lg

Plaintiff's action dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove malice in filing/advertising the winding up petition, did not validly terminate the contract (and in any event waived rights by conduct), failed to obtain the import permit which was the cause of non-delivery, failed to mitigate loss, and was estopped...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCC-67-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Infologic Pte Ltd; Defendant: Chow King Tock; Defendant: Wu Ee Tsien
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 November 2019
Case Number
WA-22NCC-67-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Arbitration (commercial) / Judgment Following Full Trial (high Court)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Winding Up Petition, Termination of Contract, Specific Performance, Mitigation of Damages, Res Judicata/estoppel, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act
Contract Law Arbitration Law Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Tort (malicious Prosecution) Enforcement of Arbitral Award Winding Up Petition +5 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Infologic Pte Ltd

Defendant

Chow King Tock

Defendant

Wu Ee Tsien

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Arbitration (commercial) / Judgment Following Full Trial (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the winding up petition was filed or advertised with malice
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff validly terminated the contract and is entitled to refund for Remaining Goods
  3. 3 Whether non-delivery was caused by defendant or by plaintiff's failure to obtain import permit

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's action dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove malice in filing/advertising the winding up petition, did not validly terminate the contract (and in any event waived rights by conduct), failed to obtain the import permit which was the cause of non-delivery, failed to mitigate loss, and was estopped from re-litigating the Fleetsol claim previously dismissed in arbitration; adverse inference applied for failure to call material witness.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs of RM50000.00 subject to allocator
  • All declarations and monetary claims by plaintiff refused