Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SUMATEC ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIAN REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction against bank guarantee (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's view on unconscionability (Para 4 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arguments on unconscionable conduct (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. establishment of unconscionability as a distinct ground (Para 11 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 38 , 42) |
| 5. principles regarding on-demand bank guarantees. (Para 17) |
| 6. fraud exception to bank guarantees established. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 7. legal precedents on unconscionability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. judicial discretion and unconscionability considerations. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. test for proving unconscionability. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 10. acceptance of unconscionability as valid ground. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
[1] In the High Court the appellant here (Sumatec) succeeded in obtaining an injunction to restrain the respondent here (MRC) from calling upon a bank guarantee issued by Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad (BIMB). The High Court also dismissed MRCs application to set aside an earlier ex-parteinjunction order dated 4 June 2010 obtained by Sumatec to the same effect.
[2] The ex-parteinterlocutory application by Sumatec in the High Court was for the following prayers:
(a) to restrain the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
