Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (ENCLS 1 2 4 17 23 24.... – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's applications overview (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. background facts and evidence presented (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. arguments of parties regarding jurisdiction and process (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. court’s observations on intervention in adjudication (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. court's findings regarding allegations of fraud (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. determination on issues raised and their implications (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
Introduction
[1] There were two applications by the Plaintiff.
[2] In the first application (encl 1) pursuant to ss 25 and 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Act 91] ('CJA 1964') and O 92, r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ('RC 2012'), the Plaintiff prayed for, among others,:
(a) a declaration that:
(i) the reference of dispute to adjudication by the Defendant by way of Notice of Adjudication dated 28 September 2022 ('Notice of Adjudication') and registered as AIAC/D/ADJ-4498-2022 ('Adjudication Proceedings') is unreasonable, oppressive and/ or an abuse of process;
(ii) the Adjudicator appointed in the Adjudica
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
