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

2023 MarsdenLR 489

SESSIONS COURT IPOH
SUCCESS INPUT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PRISTAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent


Table of Content
1. the necessity of satisfactory completion for retention claims. (Para 1 , 5)
2. court's determination on claims and counterclaims, leading to denial of all. (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
Priscilla Hemamalini Nadarajan SCJ:

[1] The Plaintiff instituted two suits against the Defendant to recover the total retention sum of 5.0% (2.5% under each suit) under Contract Agreement dated 3 May 2016 (Exhibit P-1, pages 1 to 10 Bundle F). The two (2) suits instituted by the Plaintiff are set out as below:

(a) Ipoh Sessions Court Civil Suit AA-A52NCVC-24-02/2019 ("Suit 24");

(b) Ipoh Sessions Court Civil Suit AA-A52NCVC-153-09/2019 ("Suit 153").

Suit 24 is in respect of Plaintiff's claim for the first 2.5% retention sum of RM270,701.19 which was due on 14 July 2018.

Suit 153 is in respect of Plaintiff's claim for the other 2.5% retention sum of RM270,701.19 which was due on 14 July 2019.

The Defendant has also instituted a counter claim in Suit 24 against the Plaintiff for failure to complete the rectification of the sewerage reticulation works under agreement dated 28 March 2016 (Exhibit D6, pp 219 to 222 Bundle F).

[2] The cases were heard before Judge Tn Harith Sham with the evidence of PW1, Pla

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