METROPLEX BERHAD vs PANTAI TOWERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 2814

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
METROPLEX BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PANTAI TOWERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent

Table of Content
1. application for leave to appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. procedure for notice of motion (Para 3 , 4)
3. concept of functus officio and its implications (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 19)
4. limits of inherent jurisdiction and exceptions (Para 16 , 26 , 27)
5. actions invalid without prior leave under companies act (Para 28 , 35 , 36)
6. ruling on necessary appeal procedure and questions (Para 38 , 40)

Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

[1] This was the applicant defendant's application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High COURT in dismissing the applicant defendant's appeal on 13 October 2010.

[2] The appeal before the Kuala Lumpur High COURT centred against the dismissal of the applicant defendant's application to set aside the summary judgment entered against the applicant defendant by the respondent plaintiff at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions COURT on 9 October 2009 for the sum of RM159,146.23 together with interest.

[3] A notice of motion for leave to appeal is required as the subject matter is below RM250,000.00. This is clearly set out in s 68(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 . And if the amount or value of the subject matter of the claim is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 2814

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAMETROPLEX BERHAD – AppellantVersusPANTAI TOWERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
METROPLEX BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PANTAI TOWERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent