THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because service of the writ and default judgment was properly effected, the 3rd Defendant’s application was filed 24 months late and he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; accordingly the court declined to consider the merits of the alleged defence and refused to set aside the judgment; costs of RM3,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.

Citation
WA-22M-476-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD; 1st Defendant: SANSHAN CAPITAL SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: SANDIRAN AIL NADARAJAN; 3rd Defendant: THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 April 2021
Case Number
WA-22M-476-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Suit (debt Recovery) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default (o.42 R.13 / O.13 R.8)
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment in default not set aside.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Process, Guarantee and Suretyship, Forgery and Signature Disputes, Delay and Limitation
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Contract Law Insolvency/bankruptcy Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Process Guarantee and Suretyship Forgery and Signature Disputes +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Plaintiff

SANSHAN CAPITAL SDN BHD

1st Defendant

SANDIRAN AIL NADARAJAN

2nd Defendant

THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Suit (debt Recovery) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Judgment in Default (o.42 R.13 / O.13 R.8)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was irregular or regularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether service of the writ and default judgment on the 3rd Defendant was valid
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Defendant provided a satisfactory explanation for a 24‑month delay in applying to set aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because service of the writ and default judgment was properly effected, the 3rd Defendant’s application was filed 24 months late and he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; accordingly the court declined to consider the merits of the alleged defence and refused to set aside the judgment; costs of RM3,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judgment in default not set aside.

Orders

  • Application to set aside dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Plaintiff RM3,000.00