HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KIDE INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD (ENCLS 1 6 & 7) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. purpose of fortuna injunctions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ex parte application process (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. inter partes application details (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. plaintiff's grounds for injunction (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. defendant's opposition grounds (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal position on fortuna injunctions (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. court's decision on criteria (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. disputed vs undisputed debts (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. court's analysis of evidence (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 10. final judgment and costs (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
Introduction
[1] It is axiomatic that the raison d'etre for the granting of an injunction to restrain a presentation of a winding up petition, commonly referred to as a Fortuna Injunction, is to prevent an abuse of process of court. In Fortuna Holdings Pty Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1978] VR 83, the juridical basis for the relief was elucidated by McGarvie J of the Supreme court of Victoria. In this regard, a Fortuna Injunction deserves it rightful place in the annals of civil practice and procedure. Its continued
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.