GREENERY PARTNERS & NETWORKS SDN BHD Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB)

GREENERY PARTNERS & NETWORKS SDN BHD Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB)

Documents categorized and agreed as Part B were properly admitted; SP‑1's testimony and measurements established tampering and that bypass current fed the Premises on balance of probabilities; s.38(4) statement created prima facie evidence of quantum which Appellant failed to rebut (no adequate evidence of Ammeter malfunction or manifest error); however back‑charges for periods prior to demonstrable tampering were reduced, and Sessions Court judgment was varied accordingly.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-45-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Greenery Partners & Networks Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Tenaga Nasional Berhad; Third Party: Magtrix Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 January 2025
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-45-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (rayuan Sivl) / Appellate Judgment (dismissed With Variation)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with variation to quantum
Legal Topics
Meter Tampering, Loss of Revenue Under S.38 ESA, Admissibility of Documents (part B, S.73 A), Calibration of Measuring Instruments, Back‑charge Period Calculation
Source Language
Malay/English
Energy Law Evidence Civil Procedure Contract Meter Tampering Loss of Revenue Under S.38 ESA Admissibility of Documents (part B, S.73 A) Calibration of Measuring Instruments +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenery Partners & Networks Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Defendant

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Respondent / Plaintiff

Magtrix Sdn Bhd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (rayuan Sivl) / Appellate Judgment (dismissed With Variation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of Respondent's documents where maker not called (Part B / s73A Evidence Act)
  2. 2 Whether evidence proved bypass current actually flowed into Premises distribution board
  3. 3 Whether s.38(4) Electricity Supply Act 1990 gives prima facie entitlement to claimed quantum

Ratio Decidendi

Documents categorized and agreed as Part B were properly admitted; SP‑1's testimony and measurements established tampering and that bypass current fed the Premises on balance of probabilities; s.38(4) statement created prima facie evidence of quantum which Appellant failed to rebut (no adequate evidence of Ammeter malfunction or manifest error); however back‑charges for periods prior to demonstrable tampering were reduced, and Sessions Court judgment was varied accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with variation to quantum

Orders

  • Sessions Court judgment affirmed as to liability but principal sum reduced from RM156,244.95 to RM121,867.16
  • Respondent awarded costs of RM5,000.00