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

2007 MarsdenLR 2774 ; 2007 MarsdenLR 1

GOPAL SRI RAM, LOW HOP BING, RAUS SHARIF
ANNIE QUAH LAY NAH – Appellant
Versus
SYED JAFER PROPERTIES SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent


Advocates:
For the appellant - Jogindeer Singh (PM Malingam, CT Annathurai & Sharmala Batumalai with him); M/s Hamzah, Sulaiman & Partners
For the 1st respondent - T Kuhan; M/s Bahri Kuhan Yeoh & Ghandi
For the 2nd respondent - K Kirubakaran (Nadzarin Wok Nordin & Jack Siose with him); M/s Nadzarin Kuok Puthucheary & Tan
For the 3rd respondent - R Sharen; M/s Gerard Samuel & Assoc
(Civil Appeal No: B-02-625-2005)
For the appellant - K Kirubakaran (Nadzarin Wok Nordin & Jack Siose with him); M/s Nadzarin Kuok Puthucheary & Tan
For the 1st respondent - Fong Teng Fook; M/s Yusof Khan Fong & KS Tan
For the 2nd respondent - Jogindeer Singh (PM Malingam, CT Annathurai & Sharmala Batumalai with him); M/s Hamzah, Sulaiman & Partners

JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] There are two appeals before us. They are Civil Appeal No B-02-623-05 ("the first appeal") and B-02-625-05 ("the second appeal"). They vividly illustrate the operation of the doctrine of estoppel in the sphere of procedural law. The relevant facts are as follows. The litigants before us were parties to a joint venture agreement. Disputes having arisen under that agreement, these were referred to arbitration. An award in the plaintiff's favour was handed down on 29 January 1988. Later, on 17 July 1990 the plaintiff (first respondent in the first appeal) filed a summons to enforce the award under the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1952. It was filed in the Appellate and Special Powers Division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court. On 28 February 1992, the appellant in the first appeal and the first respondent in the second appeal commenced an action in the Shah Alam High Court to specifically enforce the joint venture agreement. Then, on 24 September 1993, the appellant in the first appeal and the first respondent in the second appeal took out a summons in chambers in the enforcement proceedings in Kuala Lumpur. By that summons she applied to intervene in

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