Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
IFCI LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
BISHOPGATE CAPITAL LIMITED & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the necessity of amending defenses during ongoing proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial discretion in allowing amendments based on factual developments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 40) |
| 3. the amendments do not alter the character of the suit. (Para 25 , 35) |
Introduction
[1] There are 2 applications before the Court in Enclosure ("Encl") 139 and Encl 141 filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendant respectively to amend para 11 and 21 of their respective Defence. Both applications filed pursuant to O 20 r 5(1) and or O 92(4) of the Rules 2012 (" ROC 2012") raised identical amendments. As the issues are the same regarding the identical amendments, both applications were heard together.
[2] I had allowed both applications, with costs to the Plaintiff on 7.02.2023 and given broad reasons for my decision. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decisions.
Background facts
[3] The Plaintiff granted a short-term loan of INR552,400,000.00 ("the loan") to Gouttephone Technology Private Limited ("GTPL"). GTPL assigned all its rights and benefits under a Promissory Note ("PN") in the value of USD10,000,000.00 to the Plaintiff as security for the loan.
[4] Pursuant to the PN, the 1s
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
