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

2010 MarsdenLR 1276

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
TENAGA NASIONAL BHD – Appellant
Versus
TAIKO PLANTATIONS SDN BHD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Ashok K Raman,Sabry Kassim ,Respondent Advocate: N Selvarajah

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not explicitly state that service of a writ of summons to the last known or corresponding address is considered legally effective even if it is not a business or registered address. The document primarily discusses issues related to the proof of wiring faults, estoppel, statutory billing limitations, and the conduct of the parties involved, but it does not specify the rules or legal principles concerning the validity of service of process based on last known or other addresses.


Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim initiation and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of plaintiff’s claim based on electricity underbilling (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. defendant’s admissions and disputes regarding the claim (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court trial proceedings timeline and witness testimonies (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court’s decision and order dismissing the claim (Para 39)
6. legal criteria for estoppel related to electric billing (Para 106 , 148 , 151)
Su Geok Yiam J:

[1] On 14 November 1994, the plaintiff filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the defendant to claim a sum of RM276,397 (the "said sum") being the balance of one-third of the actual consumption of electricity which it alleged that it had under billed the defendant for a period of five years and two months ie from 13 December 1986 until 17 February 1992, interest on the said sum at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from 13 December 1985 until the date of full settlement, costs, and any other relief deemed suitable and fair by the court.

Facts And Background

[2] The facts and background of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant are, briefly, as follows:

[3] The plaintiff is th

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