DATUK SERI SARAVANAN A/L MURUGAN 1. ) SANKRAN A/L NAGAPPEN 2. ) SARASWATHY A/P KANDASAMI PENCELAH 1. ) Malayan Banking Berhad 2. ) KAVITHA A/P VIVEKANANDAN 3. ) RUZITA BINTI MOHD NOR PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

DATUK SERI SARAVANAN A/L MURUGAN 1. ) SANKRAN A/L NAGAPPEN 2. ) SARASWATHY A/P KANDASAMI PENCELAH 1. ) Malayan Banking Berhad 2. ) KAVITHA A/P VIVEKANANDAN 3. ) RUZITA BINTI MOHD NOR PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

The court held the counterclaim was time‑barred: causes of action accrued on the bankruptcy adjudication (30.08.2010) or upon plaintiff's own pleaded discovery of fraud (15.09.2015) so limitation expired; plaintiff admitted knowledge in pleadings and failed to discharge burden to show timeliness; pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and conspiracy lacked particulars; accordingly claims against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-283-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Suit): Datuk Seri Saravanan a/l Murugan; Defendant (original Suit): Sankran a/l Nagappen; Defendant (original Suit): Saraswathy a/p Kandasami; Plaintiff (counterclaim): Sankran a/l Nagappen; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Kavitha a/p Vivekanandan; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Ruzita binti Mohd Nor; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Malayan Banking Berhad; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): RMW Manufacturing Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 September 2022
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-283-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Applications to Strike Out Counterclaim (order 18 R.19/order 92/ro C)
Outcome
Applications allowed; counterclaim struck out against 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Limitation, Deceit (fraud), Breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Summary Judgment, Res Judicata
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Bankruptcy Law Contract Law Tort Law Company Law Strike Out Limitation +5 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Datuk Seri Saravanan a/l Murugan

Plaintiff (original Suit)

Sankran a/l Nagappen

Defendant (original Suit)

Saraswathy a/p Kandasami

Defendant (original Suit)

Sankran a/l Nagappen

Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Kavitha a/p Vivekanandan

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Ruzita binti Mohd Nor

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Malayan Banking Berhad

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

RMW Manufacturing Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Applications to Strike Out Counterclaim (order 18 R.19/order 92/ro C)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim disclosed a reasonable cause of action against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants
  3. 3 Whether reliefs to set aside AORO and summary judgment are barred by res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the counterclaim was time‑barred: causes of action accrued on the bankruptcy adjudication (30.08.2010) or upon plaintiff's own pleaded discovery of fraud (15.09.2015) so limitation expired; plaintiff admitted knowledge in pleadings and failed to discharge burden to show timeliness; pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and conspiracy lacked particulars; accordingly claims against 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; counterclaim struck out against 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants

Orders

  • Enclosures 28, 30 and 31 allowed
  • The Plaintiff's counterclaim struck out against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants