| |
| | Goh Eng Hwa v M/S Laksamana Realty Sdn Bhd (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05) |
 | | Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, Laksamana ought not to be allowed to raise and pursue the locus standi issue (see para 78). |
 | | Laksamana dan Goh telah pada 11 Ogos 1983 memasuki satu perjanjian di mana, sebagai balasan RM30,000, yang Laksamana mendakwa telah diterima oleh Goh, Goh telah bersetuju untuk melepaskan hak dan kepentingan beliau dalam premis di mana beliau telah menetap atas tanah tersebut dan menyerahkan milikan kosong ke atas tanah tersebut pada 15 Ogos 1984. |
 | | On that application, on 28 November 1995, the judgment in default was set aside because, so we are informed by Laksamana through para 11 of their outline of submission, the judgment in default had been obtained when Goh was a bankrupt without the sanction of the Official Assignee. |
| cms.lawnet.com.sg /main/cases/MLJ/[2003]_MLJ_253.html (8304 words) |
|