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

2013 MarsdenLR 984

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PUNITHAVATHI @ PUSHPAMBIGAI PONNIAH – Appellant
Versus
GANENDRA TORQUIL @ TORKIL AL PONNUSAMY GANENDRA & ANOR – Respondent


Table of Content
1. background of estate execution dispute (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3)
2. history of consent order appeals (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. taxation bill proceedings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. respondents' arguments for striking out (Para 11 , 12)
5. appellant's counterarguments (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. court's decision reasoning (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. cause of action accrual (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

[1] We had earlier allowed the appeal of Punithavathi @ Pushpambigai Ponniah (the Appellant) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, who, on 21 June 2012, allowed the application of Ganendra Torquil @ Torkil A/L Ponnusamy Ganendra and Dennis Ganendra ("the 1st and 2nd Respondents") to strike out the Appellant's Notice of Taxation and Bill of Costs dated 29 December 2011, on the ground that limitation had set in. We now give our reasons for our decision.

Brief Facts

[2] The Appellant, together with one Loong Ceasar, were appointed as executors and trustees of the estate of one P. Ganendra, the deceased. In the year 2000, Goh Mary, as the wife of the late Ganendra, commenced this suit as the Plaintiff, for the removal of the Appellant and Loong Ceasar as the executors and

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