SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 MarsdenLR 271

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION (JAPAN) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BENTINI SPA & ORS – Respondent


Table of Content
1. nature of the agreement between plaintiff and defendants. (Para 1 , 1 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. background facts of the joint venture. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. previous legal disputes related to the agreements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. issues to be determined by the court. (Para 23 , 30 , 31 , 32)

[1] What is in a name? A lot as will be seen in this case. For the plaintiff, it is more than a name. It claims that the name "NF Energy-Bentini JV" represents a partnership between the first and second defendants. It claims that it was the basis upon which the plaintiff had contracted with these defendants. For the first defendant, it is just a name; not a partnership.

Background facts

[2] It all started far away, in Sudan, in fact with a company called Petrodar Operating Company Limited ("Petrodar"). Petrodar is a joint venture company comprising China National Petroleum Corporation, Petroliam Nasional Berhad, Sudan Petroleum Company Limited, China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation and Al-Thani Corporation.

[3] The first and second defendants, formed a consortium known as "NF Energy-Bentini JV" ("the JV") which successfully secured an engineering, procurement, construction and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top