Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SINARLIM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MEDALLION BUILDERS SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cases consolidated due to commonality. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims arise under separate contracts, common witnesses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. plaintiff's audit confirmations sought acknowledgment of debts. (Para 12 , 16 , 20) |
| 4. claims arise under separate contracts. (Para 13) |
| 5. defendant's arguments on burden and limitation considered. (Para 17 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 6. court confirms existence of contracts and responsibilities. (Para 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 41) |
| 7. submissions of no case require strong basis. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. evidence reviewed supports debts owed to plaintiff. (Para 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44) |
| 9. existence of contracts is established. (Para 35) |
| 10. documents support claims; no disputes raised. (Para 42 , 43 , 45) |
| 11. audit confirmations analyzed as valid acknowledgment of debts. (Para 52 , 53) |
[1] By consent, the parties agreed that these three cases be heard together since they involved common parties and similar issues of claims for monies said to be due from work done for the defendant.
[2] After the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant informed the court that it was submitting that there was no case to answer or meet in any of 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
