Back
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
TEE GEOK HOCK, J
Digital Tempo Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Pengangkutan Awam Putrajaya Travel & Tours Sdn Bhd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's appointment contract details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's termination notice is disputed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiff seeks injunction preventing eviction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. plaintiff's cause of action established. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. court's reasoning on interlocutory injunction. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. court dismisses defendant's challenge. (Para 63 , 68) |
| 7. final injunction order granted. (Para 90) |
[1]The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant in 2017 for the execution of the off-street and on-street car park operations for the whole of Putrajaya using the payment system and electronic system of Parkbyphone.
[2]The appointment was stipulated to be for an initial period of three (3) years, with an optional extension clause for a further two (2) years. The exact words on clauses 2B(i)(d) and 2(B)(i)(e) of the Contract provides as follows:
“d) Tempoh Pelantikan ini adalah selama tiga (3) tahun dengan opsyen lanjutan selama dua (2) tahun dengan menggunakan terma dan syarat yang sama seperti yang terkandung di dalam surat ini..”
e) Tempoh lanjutan tamat tempoh lima (5) tahun pertama boleh dilaksanakan dengan tempoh serta terma dan syarat yang sama set
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
