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

2019 MarsdenLR 2167

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TUNE TALK SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PADDA GURTAJ SINGH – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Logan Sabapathy,Carmelia Cheong ,Respondent Advocate: Shamala Balasundram,Tan Hui Xian & Mohd Aerie Rahman

[1] This appeal arose out of the decision of the learned High Court Judge who, on 3 September 2014 dismissed the appellant's application (encl 6) to set aside the ex parte Order dated 4 March 2014 (the said ex parte Order) for the recognition and enforcement of a Final Award made in favour of the respondent in arbitration proceedings. The order for recognition and enforcement was made in accordance with s 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 ( AA ) and under O 69 r 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).

[2] We had, after hearing submissions by counsel for both the appellant and the respondent, by a majority (Justice Nallini Pathmanathan dissenting) dismissed the appellant's appeal. Our reasons appear below.

[3] The appellant and the respondent will be referred to as they were referred to in the High Court.

[4] This appeal involves essentially a question of law, viz.

(a) Section 38 of the AA ;

(b) Section 39 of the AA ; and

(c) Order 69 r 8(2) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).

To fully appreciate the issue at hand, it is perhaps necessary to set out a brief background of the facts leading to the present appeal. For this purpose, we adopt with some modification the brief background facts as set o

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