D Smile Academy v Grabfleet Management Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-211-05/2024)

D SMILE ACADEMY (No. Pendaftaran: SA0541355-D)

MOHD SULAIMAN BIN NUBA (No. K/P: 881017-12-6025)

JAGDISHPAL SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH (No. K/P: 810116-14-5987) bertindak secara sendiri dan juga sebagai pemilik tunggal di atas nama dan gaya STARCON AND SERVICES ENTERPRISE (No. Pendaftaran: 002921210-D)

GIGITAL DENTAL GROUP SDN. BHD (No. Syarikat: 1397943-D)

DR HARVIR SINGH SIDHU (No. K/P: 920227-14-5061)

DR. MUHAMMAD FATHULLAH BIN MOHD YUSSOF (No. K/P:921112-10-5971) 29/09/2025 17:26:13

NORAINI BINTI AHMAD NAWAWI (No.K/P: 860321-43-5356 ) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

GRABFLEET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1312159-V)

IMRAN BIN A HAMID (No. K/P: 780509-71-5093) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is the Plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment in Enclosure 13, pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).

The Plaintiff’s claim is for an alleged breach of a written investment agreement known as the “Perjanjian Vendor” (hereinafter referred to as the Vendor Agreement) entered into between the Plaintiffs and the First Defendant, Grabfleet Management Sdn. Bhd. The Plaintiffs asserted that, pursuant to this agreement, they invested a substantial sum of money with the Defendants, and in return, the Defendants were to pay monthly returns on their investment over a period of 60 months. However, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants defaulted on making the promised payments from March 2024 onwards and have since failed or refused to fulfil their contractual obligations.

The Plaintiffs argued that this is a clear debt claim, supported by a written agreement and corroborated by contemporaneous documents, and that the Defendants have not raised any bona fide defence or triable issue justifying a full trial.

The Defendants, however, opposed the application on the grounds that factual disputes and issues requiring adjudication at trial exist.

Having considered the cause papers, affidavits, and the written and oral submissions by both parties, this Court is satisfied that this is a proper case for summary judgment under Order 14 of the ROC

My reasons are set out below.

The Plaintiffs in this action comprise individuals and business entities who entered into an investment agreement with the First Defendant, Grabfleet Management Sdn Bhd, a company managed by the Second Defendant, Imran bin A. Hamid.

The investment arrangement was formalised through a series of Vendor Agreements entered into between the respective Plaintiffs and the First Defendant. The Defendants did not dispute these agreements and were explicitly mentioned in their own pleadings and affidavits.

8.

The investment arrangements started smoothly, with payments made according to the agreed schedule. However, by early March 2024, the First Defendant ceased or failed to make the required monthly payments. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs made a series of communications with the Defendants to request the resumption of payments.

Several reminders were sent via email and WhatsApp messages. Among these communications was an email dated 5 May 2024, in which the Plaintiffs demanded that payment be made by 6:00 PM on 7 May 2024; failure to do so would result in legal action. This email was neither denied nor responded to by the Defendants.

Despite these reminders and demands, the Defendants failed to resume payment or provide any satisfactory explanation. Instead, the Second Defendant merely informed the Plaintiffs that the First Defendant required additional time until July 2024 to commence repayments. The Plaintiffs denied ever consenting to this proposed extension and maintained that the Defendants’ obligations under the Vendor Agreements remained enforceable and had been breached.

In the Amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to fulfil their monthly payment obligations under the Vendor Agreements and sought judgment for the outstanding amounts.

The Plaintiffs then filed this application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the basis that the Defendants have no defence to the claims and have admitted the material facts forming the basis of the cause of action.

The Defendants, in response, filed a Defence and affidavit admitting the existence of the Vendor Agreements and that payments were delayed. However, they claimed they had informed the Plaintiffs of their intention to resume payments in July 2024 and that the Plaintiffs had orally agreed to this revised schedule. The Defendants further argued that the Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by filing suit in May 2024 before the alleged revised repayment date.

The Plaintiffs strongly objected to the Defendants’ allegation, emphasising that the Defendants had no documentary evidence of any variation to the original agreement and failed to provide any proof of payment or even a proposed payment plan. They also submitted screenshots of WhatsApp messages and emails demonstrating their consistent efforts to follow up and recover the sums owed.

The Plaintiffs argued that this is a straightforward debt recovery case, where the Defendants have admitted to the Vendor Agreement, the default in payment, and have not presented a credible or supported defence. Therefore, the Plaintiffs maintained that a summary judgment is justified without the need for a full trial.

Order 14 rules 1 and 2 of the ROC 2012 allow a plaintiff to apply for summary judgment in situations where the defendant has entered an appearance and where the plaintiff can show that the defendant has no defence to the claim, or to part of it, other than regarding the amount of damages. The application must be supported by an affidavit that sets out the material facts of the case and affirms the belief that the defendant has no defence to the claim. Once these procedural requirements are satisfied, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there is a real or bona fide issue to be tried.

The law regarding summary judgment is well established. The Court is reminded that summary judgment is a special jurisdiction and must be exercised cautiously, only in clear and straightforward cases. This principle has been established in numerous authorities, including Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 183, where the Court held that Order 14 should only be applied when there is no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. The provision is not intended to deny a defendant their right to a fair hearing, nor should a plainly entitled plaintiff be delayed by a defence that is manifestly without merit.

This Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have met the procedural requirements under Order 14 of the ROC 2012. The Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim were duly served on the Defendants. The Defendants entered an appearance and filed their Statement of Defence.

In the Enclosure 13 application, the Plaintiffs filed a supporting affidavit that clearly set out the material facts of the claim and explicitly stated that the Defendants have no defence. The affidavit also included documentary evidence, such as the Vendor Agreement and written communications between the parties.

These procedural steps satisfy the requirements set out in the Federal Court decisions in National Company For Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300 and Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying & Anor [2006] 3 CLJ 544, where it was emphasised that summary judgment can only be considered once these threshold requirements are satisfied.

The Plaintiffs’ claim is founded on a written investment agreement with the First Defendant. It is not disputed that the parties entered into a Vendor Agreement whereby the First Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs fixed monthly returns on their investment for a period of five years (60 months). The Plaintiffs have attached the Vendor Agreement and correspondence to substantiate their case.

The Defendants failed to honour this agreement from March 2024, and despite repeated demands, including an email dated 5 May 2024, they did not resume payments. This was not disputed.

The email, which is part of Exhibit JSKS-1, clearly warned the Defendants to settle the outstanding sum by 7 May 2024, or legal action would be taken. There was no dispute that this email was received, and the Defendants also made no response challenging the demand.

On the contrary, the Defendants’ own affidavit at paragraph 9 acknowledged that payments were owed and that the Defendants simply needed more time until July 2024 to regularise their financial situation. However, no such payments were ever made, even up to the hearing of this application.

In resisting the application, the Defendants raised several points. They argued that the Plaintiffs had orally agreed to defer the repayment date and that the filing of this suit was premature. They also asserted that they never refused to pay and were making genuine efforts to secure funds. However, these claims are not supported by any documentary evidence. The Plaintiffs gave no written confirmation of such an extension.

Furthermore, the claim that the Plaintiffs agreed orally to defer repayment was explicitly denied by the Plaintiffs, who have provided communications demonstrating active efforts to recover their investment.

This Court agrees with the Plaintiffs’ submission that these assertions are merely bare denials, which do not satisfy the threshold required to oppose a summary judgment application. In Chen Heng Ping & Ors v Intradagang Merchant Bankers (M) Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 363, the Court of Appeal held that mere denials are not evidence, and Defendants must raise genuine triable issues through affidavit evidence, rather than vague statements.

Additionally, this Court finds that the Defendants’ conduct, including failing to respond to repeated written reminders and failing to provide any evidence of payment or concrete repayment plans, supports the Plaintiffs’ position that the Defendants have no real defence. In fact, the Defendants themselves acknowledged the agreement and the outstanding obligation, and their only defence was that they needed more time, a plea which was neither put in writing nor agreed to by the Plaintiffs.

It is trite that in Order 14 of the ROC 2012 application, once the Plaintiff fulfils the requirements of Order 14, the burden shifts to the Defendant to raise a triable issue. Mere assertions, contradictions, or excuses without evidentiary support are inadequate. This Court finds these principles applicable in this case. The Defendants have failed to meet the burden imposed on them (South East Asia Insurance Berhad v Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 AMR 657; Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400; Innoseven Sdn Bhd v Big Blue Capital (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] CLJU 2727).

Having considered the entirety of the pleadings, affidavits, and submissions, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ claim is clearly established. The Defendants, although having filed a Statement of Defence and an affidavit in reply, have failed to raise any genuine triable issue of fact or law. The defence provided by the Defendants consists of mere assertions, unsupported by documentation, and directly contradicts the Plaintiffs’ evidence and the Defendants’ own admissions.

This is precisely the kind of case envisaged under Order 14 of the ROC 2012, where no meaningful dispute exists, and where delaying judgment would only prejudice the rightful claimants.

At the hearing of Enclosure 13, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs applied to amend the said enclosure by deleting paragraph (c) and amending paragraph (b) to read as follows: “(b) Plaintif-Plaintif diberi dan kebenaran untuk mencatatkan penghakiman terus terhadap Defendant-Defendant berdasarkan perengggan 29(a), (b), (c) Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Plaintiff di Lampiran12”.

I allowed the oral amendment requested by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the ROC 2012 in relation to prayer (a) and the amended prayer (b), with costs of RM10,000. Dated 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 -sgd-JAMHIRAH ALI JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiffs : Simranjeet Kaur Sandhu a/p Daljit Singh (Messrs Ras & Co) For the Defendants: Khirranya a/p Ganesan (Messrs Azmi & Associates)