TAHAN STEEL CORP SDN BHD vs BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 1318

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAHAN STEEL CORP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Harpal Singh Grewal,Jasvinjit Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Sulaiman Abdullah,Kapt (B) Tajuddin Md Isa,R Thayakugan,Farah Naz Kumar

Judgement Key Points

The jurisdiction relevant to this case is primarily the Malaysian courts, specifically the Court of Appeal Putrajaya, as indicated by the case's procedural context and location of the decision (!) (!) . The case involves Malaysian law, particularly the Contracts Act 1950 and principles of Islamic finance law, which are applicable within Malaysia's legal framework. The case also references the authority of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur, further establishing the jurisdiction as Malaysia. Therefore, the legal proceedings and rulings are within the jurisdiction of Malaysia's judicial system.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case leading to appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. details on the appellant's and respondent's appeals (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court comments on claims and counterclaims (Para 14 , 31 , 34 , 51)
4. delineation of claims by the appellant against the respondent (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. decisions by the high court (Para 32 , 49 , 50)
6. court's analysis of the securities related to termination of contracts (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. analysis of damages and liability (Para 41 , 91)
8. court's finding on counterclaim and its implications (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
9. conclusion and order on appeals (Para 68)
10. conclusion on appellant's claims and the adequacy of proof for damages (Para 93 , 94 , 96 , 99 , 100)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur of 1 June 2010. Before the High Court, the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent, the defendant.

[2] There is also a cross-appeal by the respondent on its counterclaim, but only in respect of quantum.

[3] The claim of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant before the High Court is for breach of Islamic financing agreements

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 1318

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYATAHAN STEEL CORP SDN BHD – AppellantVersusBANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAHAN STEEL CORP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BHD – Respondent