NTROUPE RESOURCES TEBOOK HOUSE SDN. BHD.

NTROUPE RESOURCES TEBOOK HOUSE SDN. BHD.

The Agreement imposed an express, unconditional obligation to pay RM4,000,000 according to a fixed schedule; Plaintiff performed and Defendant did not. There is no contractual term linking repayment to the Project or making repayment contingent on profit or project commencement. Defendant's correspondence amounted to acknowledgements of debt and its factual explanations (postponement, funds utilisation, potential third‑party claims) do not disclose a bona fide triable defence. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-297-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIFF: NTROUPE RESOURCES; DEFENDANT: TEBOOK HOUSE SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-297-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Judgment Entered at High Court (summary Judgment); Appeal Noted to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summary judgment allowed in favour of Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Repayment Obligation, Acknowledgement of Debt, Third‑party Indemnity
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Repayment Obligation Acknowledgement of Debt Third‑party Indemnity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NTROUPE RESOURCES

PLAINTIFF

TEBOOK HOUSE SDN BHD

DEFENDANT

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Judgment Entered at High Court (summary Judgment); Appeal Noted to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the Agreement imposed an unconditional obligation to repay irrespective of project postponement
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant raised any bona fide triable issue of fact or law

Ratio Decidendi

The Agreement imposed an express, unconditional obligation to pay RM4,000,000 according to a fixed schedule; Plaintiff performed and Defendant did not. There is no contractual term linking repayment to the Project or making repayment contingent on profit or project commencement. Defendant's correspondence amounted to acknowledgements of debt and its factual explanations (postponement, funds utilisation, potential third‑party claims) do not disclose a bona fide triable defence. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment allowed in favour of Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for RM2,500,000.00 and RM1,500,000.00 together with interest as claimed
  • Defendant to pay costs of RM5,000.00 subject to the allocator