CK RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 1. ) Shivdev Singh A/l Lal Harcharan Singh (Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Tetuan L. H. Singh & Co.) 2. ) DSG HOLDING SDN BHD

CK RUBBER INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. 1. ) Shivdev Singh A/l Lal Harcharan Singh (Yang Beramal Di Bawah Nama Tetuan L. H. Singh & Co.) 2. ) DSG HOLDING SDN BHD

The proposed intervener acted and signed the consent judgment as agent/director of Defendant One and not in a personal capacity; he failed to demonstrate a separate direct interest or credible evidence of fraud or forgery that would justify intervention under O 15 r 6(2)(b); therefore the application to intervene is without merit and is dismissed with costs.

Citation
AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Shivdev Singh A/L Lal HARCHARAN Singh; Defendant One: CK Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd (In Penggulungan); Defendant Two: DSG Holdings Sdn Bhd; Proposed Intervener: Looe Chee Keong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 July 2024
Case Number
AA-24NCvC-53-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (application to Intervene/setting Aside Consent Judgment) / Decision on Application to Intervene Under Order 15 R 6(2)(b) KKM 2012
Outcome
Application by proposed intervener dismissed
Legal Topics
Intervention (o15 R6(2)(b)), Consent Judgment, Agency and Separate Legal Personality, Liquidation, Allegation of Fraud
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Law Contract Law Intervention (o15 R6(2)(b)) Consent Judgment Agency and Separate Legal Personality Liquidation +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shivdev Singh A/L Lal HARCHARAN Singh

Plaintiff

CK Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd (In Penggulungan)

Defendant One

DSG Holdings Sdn Bhd

Defendant Two

Looe Chee Keong

Proposed Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil (application to Intervene/setting Aside Consent Judgment) / Decision on Application to Intervene Under Order 15 R 6(2)(b) KKM 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed intervener (PYDC) has a direct interest/locus to be added as a party under O 15 r 6(2)(b) KKM 2012
  2. 2 Whether the consent judgment dated 09.06.2022 adversely affects the personal rights of the proposed intervener
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud or forged signature were sufficiently pleaded and proved to impeach the consent judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed intervener acted and signed the consent judgment as agent/director of Defendant One and not in a personal capacity; he failed to demonstrate a separate direct interest or credible evidence of fraud or forgery that would justify intervention under O 15 r 6(2)(b); therefore the application to intervene is without merit and is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application by proposed intervener dismissed

Orders

  • Application to intervene dismissed
  • Costs of RM3000 awarded to Defendant Two to be paid by Pegawai Penerima