A
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD
Organisation 7 cases
About ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD appears as a party in 7 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to January 2026. ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD appeared as defendant in 3 cases, respondent in 2 cases, appellant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (6), Court of Appeal (1).
How many court cases involve ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD?
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD appears in 7 published judgments from February 2025 to January 2026. Most commonly as defendant (3 cases).
In which Malaysian courts has ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD appeared?
ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BERHAD has appeared across High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (6 cases) and Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (1 cases), totaling 7 judgments.
Practice Areas
Civil procedure 2 9Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang mantap yang menjadi panduan kepada Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan. Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors 2020 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti yang berikut: 1 "The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own". 1 1. D (insurer), by the provision of section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA), applied for a section 96(3) declaratory order to declare that the contract (policy) of insurance between D and the rider and owner of the motorcycle was void and unenforceable. 1 2. Plaintiff filed suit to challenge the validity of the section 96(3) Declaratory Order, on the ground of fraud (on the part of the D (insurer). 1 3. Should the section 98(3) declaratory order be set aside or should it be sustained? 1 Whether the respondents can execute the said Judgement without obtaining judgment against the appellant vide a recovery action 1 INSURANCE LAW: Fire insurance 1
Appellant (1)
Defendant (3)
wa-22ncc-827-11-2023 MYHC
MFORCE BIKE HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. v ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
30 October 2025
pa-22ncvc-211-11-2020 MYHC
RAVENDRAN A/L KALANGIAM v ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (M) BERHAD
24 February 2025
wa-27ncc-52-11-2022 MYHC
Sakura Ferroalloys Sdn Bhd v Allianz General Insurance Company (Malaysia) Berhad
6 February 2025
Respondent (2)
da-12a-6-05-2025 MYHC
1. ) MOHD SOLEHIN BIN MOHD RAZALI 2. ) TAJULARUS BIN BAHARI v 1. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) NOR ILY KAREENA BINTI ROSMAN
1 October 2025
pa-12b-32-07-2024 MYHC
DERMENDRAH A/L RAVICHANDRAN v 1. ) THIBAAN RAJ A/L RAJENDARAN 2. ) SUJATHA A/P PERUMALOO 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
20 February 2025