COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION & CIVIL ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JITTRA SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. stay application background and urgency are established. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. basis and grounds for the stay application are outlined. (Para 3 , 5 , 12) |
| 3. court's assessment of bona fides and jurisdiction in stay applications. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. burden of proof distinction in stay applications. (Para 9) |
[1] The appellant by a notice of motion (encl 3) seeks to stay a civil suit pending the disposal of a winding up petition which was subsequently filed after the civil suit.
[2] It must be noted that the winding up petition was filed by Dato' Sri Ong, a person who was a contributory of the appellant in the civil suit. We were informed that the civil suit was going to be tried by the High Court the following day. A stay was applied in the High Court and was not granted. Following the refusal of the stay, the applicant has filed a notice of appeal and seeks this interim stay. The respondents alleged that this application was applied to stall the civil suit. The application was also filed by certificate of urgency and in consequence the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not able to file their reply to the affidavit. However, the 1st respondent has filed a reply. We h
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.