1. ) RAMASAMY a/l MUTHUSAMY (NRIC NO: 631126-08-5259) 2. ) INDRA GHANDI a/p ELAYAPPAN (NRIC NO: 660114-08-5174) 1. ) SINAR MUDAH SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 748474-H) 2. ) TAN CHEANG HUAT (NRIC NO: 570301-07-6143)

1. ) RAMASAMY a/l MUTHUSAMY (NRIC NO: 631126-08-5259) 2. ) INDRA GHANDI a/p ELAYAPPAN (NRIC NO: 660114-08-5174) 1. ) SINAR MUDAH SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 748474-H) 2. ) TAN CHEANG HUAT (NRIC NO: 570301-07-6143)

Even assuming the challenged 15-6-2015 resolution was fraudulent, that would not affect the validity of the Final Settlement Agreement which was executed on 23-4-2015 by the only two directors then empowered to bind the company; the alleged fraud therefore would not have vitiated the prior Court of Appeal judgment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-306-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramasamy a/l Muthusamy; Plaintiff: Indra Ghandi a/p Elayappan; Defendant: Sinar Mudah Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Tan Cheang Huat
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 August 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-306-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit to Impeach Prior Judgment (fraud Alleged) / Decision on Defendants' Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 (strike Out Granted)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action struck out as obviously unsustainable
Legal Topics
Impeachment of Judgment for Fraud, Order 18 Rule 19 Striking Out, Indoor Management Rule (turquand) and Exceptions, Ostensible/ Apparent Authority of Directors, Validity of Corporate Resolutions, Materiality and Causation in Fraud Allegations
Civil Procedure Company Law Evidence Contract Law Impeachment of Judgment for Fraud Order 18 Rule 19 Striking Out Indoor Management Rule (turquand) and Exceptions Ostensible/ Apparent Authority of Directors +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramasamy a/l Muthusamy

Plaintiff

Indra Ghandi a/p Elayappan

Plaintiff

Sinar Mudah Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Tan Cheang Huat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit to Impeach Prior Judgment (fraud Alleged) / Decision on Defendants' Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 (strike Out Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the resolution dated 15-6-2015 was fraudulent and, if so, whether that fraud impeaches the Court of Appeal's judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Final Settlement Agreement was validly executed by the company's directors on 23-4-2015
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is obviously unsustainable such that it should be struck out under Order 18 r19

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the challenged 15-6-2015 resolution was fraudulent, that would not affect the validity of the Final Settlement Agreement which was executed on 23-4-2015 by the only two directors then empowered to bind the company; the alleged fraud therefore would not have vitiated the prior Court of Appeal judgment and the plaintiffs' claim is obviously unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 r19.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action struck out as obviously unsustainable

Orders

  • Strike out claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012
  • Plaintiffs to pay costs RM10,000.00