Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reciprocal enforcement of judgments act

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Tan See Meng

Citation

WA-29NCC-457-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-457-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the registered Singapore judgment remained valid and enforceable under REJA, the Judgment Debtor did not first apply to set aside the registration under Section 5 REJA, and the Insolvency Court will not go behind the foreign judgment to re‑examine its merits or alleged public policy objections; consequently there was no ground to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice.
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for the Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

Citation

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the documents that the petitioner is successor in title to GreenLine and an unpaid creditor; the statutory demand was properly served and the respondent failed to discharge the onus of showing ability to pay; a winding up petition is not an execution requiring REJA registration and the REJA did not bar the petition; accordingly the strike out application failed and the winding up petition was allowed with costs.
18 May 2022

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for hte Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

Citation

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-717-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the documents the petitioner established prima facie successor title to GreenLine and creditor status; the statutory demand complied with requirements and 21 days elapsed; winding-up petitions are not barred by the REJA where the foreign judgment is from a non-reciprocating country and in any event the petition stands on inability to pay; no bona fide substantial dispute was shown so strike out application failed and the winding-up order in the terms sought was appropriate.
27 Sept 2021

VENKAL APPERALS PVT LTD (B. Registration No: U18209HR2018PTC074923) Cry Respond Sdn. Bhd. (Company No.: 201901016994 (1326322-V) DAN 6 LAGI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-214-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-214-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because defendants failed to make a pre‑application demand, plaintiff demonstrated sufficient financial means (payment of USD7,079,400 and bank snapshot) and enforceability in India via REJA, defendants produced no persuasive evidence of delivery and the RM1,000,000 figure was excessive; on balance the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Tan See Meng

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for the Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

PEMPETISYEN M Rubini and Kumara Guru Naikar for the Petitioner [Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong] S Murali for hte Respondent [Messrs Murali Sangaran]

VENKAL APPERALS PVT LTD (B. Registration No: U18209HR2018PTC074923) Cry Respond Sdn. Bhd. (Company No.: 201901016994 (1326322-V) DAN 6 LAGI