Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PUREGEN TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MILLENNIUM ECO TECHNO SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. nature and scope of the contract (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. additional works and contractor obligations (Para 12 , 13 , 20) |
| 4. validity of delivery orders (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. claim for additional services (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. defendant's acknowledgment of modifications (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. statutory interest vs contractual interest (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. defendant's counterclaim dismissed (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. exemplary damages claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. conclusion and dismissal of appeals (Para 34) |
Introduction
[1] This appeal was filed by the defendant against the decision of the Sessions Court which allowed the plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices in the sum of RM394,232.38 with costs.
[2] The plaintiff had also filed a cross-appeal challenging the decision of the Sessions Court. The cross-appeal was directed against the Sessions Court's decision to award statutory interest instead of the contractual interest of 1.5% per month as expressly stipulated in the invoices.
[3] After carefully perusing the record of appeal and considering the submissions of both parties, I found no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
