M.E.B TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) PETROTECHNIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

M.E.B TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) PETROTECHNIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

Plaintiff failed to satisfy the high threshold required to impugn the beneficiary's call on the bank guarantee; the Demands complied with the express terms of the BG which is a demand guarantee payable on written demand, the alleged grievances are contractual disputes for arbitration and do not amount to unconscionability or fraud; balance of convenience and Plaintiff's weak finances further disentitled injunction; therefore the originating summons is dismissed.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-42-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: M.E.B Technology Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Petrotechnic Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: Public Bank Berhad
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 March 2023
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-42-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Enclosure 1 dismissed with costs; Enclosure 2 dismissed with costs (enclosure 2 academic).
Legal Topics
Bank Guarantee, Demand Guarantee, Injunction, Unconscionability, Interlocutory Relief, Arbitrability
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Contract Banking Civil Procedure Specific Relief Bank Guarantee Demand Guarantee Injunction +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.E.B Technology Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Petrotechnic Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

Public Bank Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant's demand on Bank Guarantee was unconscionable under s11 Arbitration Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether the Bank Guarantee is conditional or an unconditional demand guarantee
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff received IPC No 2 and related deductions by 1st Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to satisfy the high threshold required to impugn the beneficiary's call on the bank guarantee; the Demands complied with the express terms of the BG which is a demand guarantee payable on written demand, the alleged grievances are contractual disputes for arbitration and do not amount to unconscionability or fraud; balance of convenience and Plaintiff's weak finances further disentitled injunction; therefore the originating summons is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 1 dismissed with costs; Enclosure 2 dismissed with costs (enclosure 2 academic).

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 of OS 42 dismissed with costs.
  • Enclosure 2 dismissed with costs as academic.