SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

The proposed intervener's application was dismissed because they failed to prove any proprietary interest or lawful possession of the goods and therefore lacked locus standi to intervene; applicant established ownership by documentary evidence and conduct, and relevant parties occupying or responsible for the premises did not seek to set aside the injunction, justifying maintenance of the ex parte order and costs to applicant.

Citation
DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Applicant: SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD; Proposed Intervener: ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
DI-A54-5-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory) / Decision on Application to Intervene (application Dismissed); Appeal Filed to High Court
Outcome
Application to intervene dismissed with costs awarded to applicant; appeal to High Court reserved.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Injunction, Intervention, Locus Standi, Costs, Ownership of Goods, Forum/venue
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Injunctions Intervention Possession of Goods Mandatory Injunction Locus Standi Costs +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD

Applicant

ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Proposed Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory) / Decision on Application to Intervene (application Dismissed); Appeal Filed to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed intervener has locus standi to intervene
  2. 2 Whether the proposed intervener or third parties have proprietary title or right over the goods
  3. 3 Whether the ex parte mandatory injunction obtained by applicant should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed intervener's application was dismissed because they failed to prove any proprietary interest or lawful possession of the goods and therefore lacked locus standi to intervene; applicant established ownership by documentary evidence and conduct, and relevant parties occupying or responsible for the premises did not seek to set aside the injunction, justifying maintenance of the ex parte order and costs to applicant.

Court Disposition

Application to intervene dismissed with costs awarded to applicant; appeal to High Court reserved.

Orders

  • Applications to intervene in matters D1-A54-1-03/2025, D1-A54-2-03/2025, D1-A54-3-03/2025, D1-A54-4-03/2025, D1-A54-5-03/2025 and D1-A54-6-03/2025 are dismissed.
  • Global costs of RM 3000 are awarded to applicant (RM 500 per application).