FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BHD – Appellant
Versus
PERIASAMY KUPPANNAN & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of o 18 r 19 for striking off petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts regarding the winding-up petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. principles on tender of payment and effect on debts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court observations on unreasonableness and vexatious actions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. consequences of delay in strike out applications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. comments on appropriateness of o 18 r 19 in winding up. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. rationale behind the delay and justification for strike out. (Para 22) |
| 8. discretion of the court regarding questions on appeal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. final judgment and award of costs. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
[1] This appeal basically deals with the issue of whether the petition to wind up the appellant should be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of High (RHC) 1980. That rule provides for striking off on any pleading on grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court[1]. That O 18 r 19 applies to striking out a petition to wind up a company is well established[2]. In answering whether this petition to wind up the appellant has been filed on the grounds whic
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.