Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA GURNEY PARAGON RESIDENTIAL – Appellant
Versus
HUNZA PROPERTIES (GURNEY) SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for stay is unusual (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. p's claims were dismissed (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal principles for a stay (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. unusual for an unsuccessful plaintiff (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. concerns about voting rights (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. distinction between stay and injunction (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. merits in an appeal (Para 19) |
| 8. payment of costs (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. application for a stay dismissed (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
(Application For Stay Of Execution)
Prelusion
[1] This application for a stay of execution of a judgment is unusual. It is unusual because the application for a stay of execution is made by the unsuccessful Plaintiff (P), not by the Defendants.
[2] This application for a stay is contested between P and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants (D1D2D3). In P's Re-Amended Statement Of Claim, P made a total of 33 prayers for various reliefs and remedies against D1D2D3.
[3] After the trial, out of the 33 prayers against D1D2D3-
(1) P withdrew 17 prayers;
(2) no orders were made on 4 prayers; and
(3) 12 prayers were dismissed.
[4] P lost the case. P's claims were dismissed.
[5] There was no counterclaim. D1D2D3 did not mount a counterclaim ag
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
