1. ) SIMHA MITRA A/L PETHA APALA NAIDU 2. ) NIDYALETCHMY A/P SUBHA REDDY 1. ) BM CITY REALTY & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD 2. ) TAN EE SENG 3. ) Teh Guek Keim 4. ) Tan Chee Ying 5. ) Tan Kar Ying

1. ) SIMHA MITRA A/L PETHA APALA NAIDU 2. ) NIDYALETCHMY A/P SUBHA REDDY 1. ) BM CITY REALTY & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD 2. ) TAN EE SENG 3. ) Teh Guek Keim 4. ) Tan Chee Ying 5. ) Tan Kar Ying

The late affidavit (kandungan 63) was excluded for non‑compliance with mandatory rule A.32 k.13(2)(b); even with the applicant's submissions, defendants failed to prove the special circumstances required to justify a stay pending appeal; the appeal date was imminent and the claim was for monetary relief only so the proceedings would not be nugatory; accordingly the application for stay (kandungan 61) was dismissed with costs according to cause.

Citation
PB-B52NCvC-13-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif Pertama: SIMHA MITRA A/L PETHA APALA NAIDU; Plaintif Kedua: NIDYALETCHMY A/P SUBHA REDDY; Defendan Pertama: BM CITY REALTY & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.; Defendan Kedua: TAN EE SENG; Defendan Ketiga: TEH GUEK KEIM; Defendan Keempat: TAN CHEE YING; Defendan Kelima: TAN KAR YING
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Case Number
PB-B52NCvC-13-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract for Sale of Residential Property / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
Kandungan 61 (permohonan penggantungan prosiding) ditolak
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Lifting Corporate Veil, Specific Performance, Damages for Late Completion, Admission of Late Affidavit, Appeal Pending
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Property Law Company Law Stay of Proceedings Lifting Corporate Veil Specific Performance Damages for Late Completion +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIMHA MITRA A/L PETHA APALA NAIDU

Plaintif Pertama

NIDYALETCHMY A/P SUBHA REDDY

Plaintif Kedua

BM CITY REALTY & CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.

Defendan Pertama

TAN EE SENG

Defendan Kedua

TEH GUEK KEIM

Defendan Ketiga

TAN CHEE YING

Defendan Keempat

TAN KAR YING

Defendan Kelima

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract for Sale of Residential Property / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a stay of proceedings should be granted pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the late‑filed affidavit (kandungan 63) could be admitted despite procedural non‑compliance
  3. 3 Whether defendants discharged the burden of proof to show special circumstances justifying a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The late affidavit (kandungan 63) was excluded for non‑compliance with mandatory rule A.32 k.13(2)(b); even with the applicant's submissions, defendants failed to prove the special circumstances required to justify a stay pending appeal; the appeal date was imminent and the claim was for monetary relief only so the proceedings would not be nugatory; accordingly the application for stay (kandungan 61) was dismissed with costs according to cause.

Court Disposition

Kandungan 61 (permohonan penggantungan prosiding) ditolak

Orders

  • Kandungan 61 ditolak dengan kos menurut kausa
  • Kandungan 63 (Affidavit Jawapan plaintif pertama) excluded/struck out