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

2012 MarsdenLR 1894

HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
BAUER M SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
EMBASSY COURT SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. claim for specific performance and indemnification. (Para 1 , 2)
2. final award content and context. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments against admissibility of final award. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)

[1] The plaintiff, Bauer (M) Sdn Bhds claim against the 1st defendant, Embassy Court Sdn Bhd, is for an order for specific performance requiring the 1st defendant to produce the corporate guarantee issued by the 2nd defendant, Magna Prima Berhad, based on the terms of the draft corporate guarantee prepared by the plaintiff or such terms as may be deemed appropriate by the Court. The plaintiffs claim against the 2nd defendant is for an order that the 2nd defendant indemnify or pay to the plaintiff such monies as may be determined by the arbitrator to be payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff.

[2] The hearing of the suit has been completed where the plaintiff had relied on the evidence of its sole witness, Thomas Samuel a/l CT Samuel. Whilst the 1st defendant did not call any witnesses, the 2nd defendant had called a witness, namely Christopher Gerard Danker. The hearing was completed on 29 December 2011 and the case is now pending the decision of the Court.

The Applicat

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