PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD vs MUNIAMMAH MUNIANDY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 MarsdenLR 2630

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD – Appellant
Versus
MUNIAMMAH MUNIANDY – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Melvin Setnam ,Respondent Advocate: Brijnandan Singh Bhar

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions of the appellant and respondent. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. analysis of s 96(1) of the road transport act 1987. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. fortuna injunction principles. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. presumption of insolvency under companies act. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37)
6. conclusion on the appeal. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

Ramly Ali JCA:

Introduction

[1] The present appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court judge made on 27 May 2010, whereby the appellant's application for injunctive relief to restrain the respondent from filing a winding-up petition against it was dismissed with costs and at the same time, the ex parte injunction order earlier granted by the Court on 20 April 2010 was discharged.

Factual Background

[2] The appellant, being an insurance company, was at all material times the insurer of the motorcycle KN 6162 ridden by one M Sekar a/l Marimuthu which was involved in a road accident with the respondent, a pedal cyclist, on 11 May 1997.

[3] The respondent filed an action to recover damages against the said M Sekar a/l Marimuthu at the Sessio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 MarsdenLR 2630

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD – AppellantVersusMUNIAMMAH MUNIANDY – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO BHD – Appellant
Versus
MUNIAMMAH MUNIANDY – Respondent