Narendran a/l Permalu (No K/P: 770407-02-6001) [Pengarah Urusan Syarikat NR Sweets Restaurant N Cafe’ Sdn Bhd Company No:859972-V] Revathi Vecivanathan (No K/P: 800722-08-5924)

Narendran a/l Permalu (No K/P: 770407-02-6001) [Pengarah Urusan Syarikat NR Sweets Restaurant N Cafe’ Sdn Bhd Company No:859972-V] Revathi Vecivanathan (No K/P: 800722-08-5924)

The ex parte interim injunction was unjustified and should not have been made because there was no demonstrated urgency and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably the defendant's prior/directorship and contested resignation); additionally, claims for losses to the company were not appropriately pursued by the company and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Citation
PA-24NCvC-306-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Narendran a/l Permalu; Defendant: Revathi Vecivanathan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
PA-24NCvC-306-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons for Interim Injunction (ex Parte) / Inter Partes Hearing on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Interim Injunction (decision Delivered)
Outcome
Defendant's application (enclosure 11) allowed; ex parte interim injunction dated 11.6.2020 declared ought not to have been made; originating summons (enclosure 4) struck out.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Interim Injunction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Urgency Requirement, Directors' Dispute, Damages Vs Equitable Relief
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity Injunctions Ex Parte Interim Injunction Full and Frank Disclosure Urgency Requirement Directors' Dispute +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narendran a/l Permalu

Plaintiff

Revathi Vecivanathan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons for Interim Injunction (ex Parte) / Inter Partes Hearing on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Interim Injunction (decision Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte interim injunction should have been granted
  2. 2 Whether urgency justified ex parte relief
  3. 3 Whether applicant made full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte interim injunction was unjustified and should not have been made because there was no demonstrated urgency and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably the defendant's prior/directorship and contested resignation); additionally, claims for losses to the company were not appropriately pursued by the company and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application (enclosure 11) allowed; ex parte interim injunction dated 11.6.2020 declared ought not to have been made; originating summons (enclosure 4) struck out.

Orders

  • Enclosure 11 allowed and ex parte interim injunction dated 11.6.2020 declared should not have been made
  • Enclosure 4 (originating summons/ex parte application) struck out with no order as to costs