ABDUL RAHIM PONNIAH BIN ABDULLAH vs KULIM INTENSIVE DRIVING CENTRE SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 MarsdenLR 2048

ALAUDDIN
ABDUL RAHIM PONNIAH BIN ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
KULIM INTENSIVE DRIVING CENTRE SDN BHD – Respondent

Advocates:
Supramaniam a/l Kasia Pillai (Supramaniam & Co) for the plaintiff.
Jeevah a/l Subramaniam (Paul Chong & Co) for the defendant.

Table of Content
1. the procedural conduct of both parties must be evaluated. (Para 1 , 3)
2. discretionary power of the court in time extensions is paramount. (Para 2)
3. company obligations and financial transparency are crucial. (Para 4)

Alauddin J

Before this court there are two applications to be heard. Enclosure 3 is an application by the plaintiff under O 19 r 7(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC') for an order that default judgment be entered against the defendant for failure to file their statement of defence.

Enclosure 8 is an application by the defendant for leave to file their memorandum of appearance and statement of defence out of time. They also apply for an extension of time to file the affidavit in reply to the plaintiff's application at encl 3. Background facts

The plaintiff claims that as a member — of the defendant company he had invested a sum of RM10,000 towards its capital. The defendant company carries its business under the style of Kulim Intensive Driving Centre Sdn Bhd and has its registered office at No 507, Jalan Cengai Hijau, Taman Bersatu, 09000 Kulim, Kedah. The defendant company's main activity is to train and give driving lessons to mot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 MarsdenLR 2048

ALAUDDINABDUL RAHIM PONNIAH BIN ABDULLAH – AppellantVersusKULIM INTENSIVE DRIVING CENTRE SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

ALAUDDIN
ABDUL RAHIM PONNIAH BIN ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
KULIM INTENSIVE DRIVING CENTRE SDN BHD – Respondent