HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ASIAN SHIELD WAREHOUSING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
LEOPAD HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interlocutory applications for security for costs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. grounds for invalidating the sanction for legal actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. observations on bankruptcy status and implications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. principles for granting security for costs. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. final conclusions on the merits of applications. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
[1] These are two interlocutory notices of applications (Enclosure 38 and 50) filed by the Defendant in this ongoing civil trial, the disposal of which was much delayed by previous applications at the instance of the Defendant. The said applications as summarised in the Plaintiff's Written Submissions are these:
'(i) Enclosure 38 - for security for costs of RM100,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's contributor, Devi A/P Suppiah ('Devi') to this Honourable Court within 7 days under O 23 r 1(2A) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012;
(ii) Enclosure 50 - to strike out the Plaintiff's writ of summons and statement of claim dated 28 October 2016 under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) Rules of Court 2012 and/or under the Court's inherent jurisdiction."
Grounds In Su
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.