JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN 2. ) VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN

JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN 2. ) VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN

The Plaintiff was not entitled to the Fortuna injunction because the judgment debt was not genuinely disputed (it was crystallised by a Sessions Court judgment affirmed by the High Court) and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate solvency; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed but the court provided a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-24NCC-217-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; Defendant: CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN; Defendant: VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Case Number
WA-24NCC-217-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Judgment (high Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur)
Outcome
Originating summons dismissed insofar as declaratory and unconditional injunctive relief was sought; conditional Fortuna injunction available only upon payment of full judgment sum into joint stakeholder account within specified time.
Legal Topics
Fortuna Injunction, Statutory Notice, Winding Up Petition, Garnishee Proceedings, Appeal Against Judgment
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Judgment Winding Up Fortuna Injunction Statutory Notice Winding Up Petition +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Plaintiff

CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN

Defendant

VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Judgment (high Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statutory Notice dated 29-4-2024 is an abuse of court process and whether the Defendants should be restrained from presenting a winding-up petition
  2. 2 Whether there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the judgment debt justifying a Fortuna injunction
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated solvency sufficient to justify granting injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff was not entitled to the Fortuna injunction because the judgment debt was not genuinely disputed (it was crystallised by a Sessions Court judgment affirmed by the High Court) and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate solvency; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed but the court provided a conditional injunction only if the Plaintiff paid the full judgment sum into a joint stakeholder account within 30 days.

Court Disposition

Originating summons dismissed insofar as declaratory and unconditional injunctive relief was sought; conditional Fortuna injunction available only upon payment of full judgment sum into joint stakeholder account within specified time.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s prayers for declaratory relief and unconditional Fortuna injunction are refused.
  • The court may grant the injunctive order only on condition that the full judgment sum be paid into a joint stakeholder’s account to be retained pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal.