RAVINDRA KARUPPIAH vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 552

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RAVINDRA KARUPPIAH – Appellant
Versus
CIMB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Amarjeet Singh,Chanravathane S Ponnudurai ,Respondent Advocate: Jagjit Kaur Ujagar Singh,Tengku Nazihah Hanis Tg Abd Nawawi

Table of Content
1. introduction of the appeals and context regarding the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. high court's analysis and observations about the validity of the auction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments presented by the appellant and relevance of previous suits. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. discussion on doctrine of res judicata and its implications. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 38)

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before us. The appellant is the same in both appeals. The respondent in the first appeal (W-02-(IM)(NCvC-1195-06-2019) is CIMB Bank Bhd whereas the respondent in the second appeal (W-02-(IM)(NCvC-32-01-2020) is Ong Kay Ho. The subject matter of the dispute is a detached house which was sold in a public auction. Both appeals arise from the decision of the High Court to strike out the suit of the appellant to set aside the order for sale and nullify the auction sale.

[2] The appellant is Ravindra a/p Karuppiah. She is the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Muthiyah Seethambaram, who was the previous registered owner of the property. The respondents' separate applications to strike out the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 552

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYARAVINDRA KARUPPIAH – AppellantVersusCIMB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RAVINDRA KARUPPIAH – Appellant
Versus
CIMB BANK BERHAD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent