ms en en en ms en en en en en ms da en en pt en en ms en en ms ms id en en en en en en en en en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en ms ms en en en en ms ms en ms ms en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en ms ms en ms ms en ms ms en en en en en en en ms ms en en en en ms ms en en en en ms ms en ms ms en en ms en ms ms en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en en en en ms ms en en en en ms ms en ms ms en ms ms en en en en ms ms en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en id id en id id en en en en id id en en en en en en en id ms en id ms en en en en ms ms en en en en id id en en en en en en en en en en en en en jv en en it en en en en en ms ms en en en en en en en ms ms en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en en en en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms id en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms en ms ms en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ms ms en en en en en en en en id en ms ms en en en en en en en id ms en en en
2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal filed by the Judgment Debtor (JD) against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar that was given on dismissing the JD s application to set aside bankruptcy notice of and in the same application, to set aside the Receiving Order and Adjudication Order (RO & AO) made against the JD on [2] The parties are the Appellant (JD) and the Respondent who is the Judgment Creditor (JC). Facts [3] It is not in dispute that the JC s initial action was based on a breach of Tenancy Agreement of A judgment was entered against the JD on for the sum of RM51, as at including interest of 8% per annum in monthly rest calculated on daily amount outstanding from until full 2
3 settlement and cost of RM1, The Bankruptcy Notice was filed on at this Shah Alam High Court which was granted on the same day. [4] Based on the JC s written submission, the JC had in 2005 executed through one Writ of Seizure and Sale at the Kuala Lumpur Session Court (Execution No: ) but was withdrawn due to payment made by JD on for RM10, Another bankruptcy notice was filed against the JD at the Kuala Lumpur High Court No.D but was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after an agreement for JD to make payment on until [5] The JC claimed that the JD again failed to make payments and filed a Bankruptcy Notice that was served on JD by way of one main newspaper Berita Harian advertisement on and by way of personal service on [6] The JC s petition was issued to JD on , 6 months after the Bankruptcy Notice was filed and the RO & AO was recorded on
4 Cause Papers [7] The cause papers filed are as follows: (a) Penghakiman Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur bertarikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Penghakiman tersebut ); (b) Permintaan Mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan bertarikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Permintaan tersebut ); (c) Notis Kebankrapan bertarikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Notis Kebankrapan tersebut ); (d) Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh untuk lanjutan masa Notis Kebankrapan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Perintah Lanjutan Masa tersebut ); (e) Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh untuk penyampaian ganti Notis Kebankrapan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Perintah Penyampaian Ganti-BN tersebut ); (f) Affidavit Penyampaian yang diikrarkan oleh Mohd Rizuan bin Jaafar pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Affidavit Penyampaian-BN tersebut ); 4
5 (g) Petisyen Pemiutang bertarikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Petisyen Pemiutang tersebut ); (h) Affidavit Kebenaran Kenyataan Di Dalam Petisyen yang diikrarkan oleh Chin Kar Hooi pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Affidavit Penyampaian-BN tersebut ); (i) Perintah Mahkamah bertarikh utnuk penyampaian ganti Petisyen Pemiutang tersebut (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Perintah Penyampaian Ganti- Petisyen tersebut ); (j) Affidavit Penyampaian yang diikrarkan oleh Mohd Ridzuan bin Jaafar pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Affidavit Penyampaian-Petisyen Pemiutang tersebut ); (k) Perintah Penerimaan Bagi Petisyen Pemiutang bertaikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Perintah Penerimaan tersebut ); (l) Perintah Penghukuman bertarikh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Perintah Penghukuman tersebut ); (m) Saman Dalam Kamar bertarikh (Lampiran 33) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Permohonan JD tersebut ); 5
7 commencing the bankruptcy proceedings against JD as the judgment obtained was more than six years. [9] The counsel raised the issue as to whether the JC is allowed under section 3 (1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 to issue a bankruptcy notice when there is a time lapse between the date of the judgment and the date of the bankruptcy notice which is 11 years and 8 months. The counsel referred to the two Federal Court cases: Dr. Shamsul Bahar Bin Abdul Kadir v RHB Bank Berhad [2015] 4 CLJ 561 and Amfraser Securities Pte Ltd v Poh Gaik Lye [2016] MLRA 995 and submitted that the JC cannot lawfully file the bankruptcy notice after a lapse of six years or more from date of judgment unless prior leave of the Court pursuant to Order 46 r. 2(1)(a) of the ROC 2012 has been obtained. [10] The counsel for JD submitted the effect of failure to obtain leave as required, arguing that it will amount to the subsequent action as incompetent and relied on the authority V. Gopal, Re: Ex: Bank Buh (M) Bhd [1987] 1 CLJ 602 where it was held that it was a requirement for a judgment creditor to obtain leave to issue execution under Order 46 r. 2(1)(a) of Rules of High Court 1980 before commencing with 7
8 bankruptcy proceedings on a judgment entered more than six years earlier. [11] The counsel also referred to the case Wee Chow Yong, Ex P; Public Finance Bhd [1990] 1 CLJ 176; [1990] 3 CLJ, where Edgar Joseph Jr J (as then was) held in terms similar to VC George J in the V Gopal (supra) case that made reference to the English cases on the parallel English law which defines a creditor who has obtained a final judgment under section 3(1)(i) to mean that the petitioner is not entitled to enforce the judgment if he has not obtained the requisite leave as prescribed by Order 46 r.2(1)(a) where the bankruptcy notice was served after six years from date of judgment. Based on the foregoing two decisions, the Court heard the counsel s submission that a creditor who has obtained a judgment and sat on it for more than six years in West Malaysia must obtain leave of Court before he can commence bankruptcy proceedings under section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act In addition, the counsel submitted that the law pertaining to section 3 of the said Act 1967 had always been in place. [12] The counsel for the JD also referred to the Federal Court Case of Low Mun v. Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1987] 2 CLJ 400; [1987] 8
9 CLJ (Rep) 172 where he pointed to the decision of Mohamed Azmi SCJ on section 3(1)(i) of the Act at page 176, It is also essential that at the time of issue of the bankruptcy notice, the judgment creditor must be in the position to issue execution see Re Woodall, ex parte Woodall [1884] 13 QBD 479. [13] The counsel heavily relied on Dr Shamsul Bahar Bin Abdul Kadir vs RHB Bank Berhad [2015] 4 CLJ 561 stating that the Federal Court had reverted the position of Order 46 r. 2 (1)(a) of the ROC 2012 and pointed to the analysis where it derived its decision. The counsel also submitted that based on Dr. Shamsul Bahar s (supra) case, the decision revolved around the requirement for leave from Court. [14] The counsel for the JD further sought to refer to the case Amfraser Securites Pte Ltd vs Poh Gail Lye 2016 MLRA 995, the Federal Court decision and quoted as follows, (1) The notice was issued some 10 years and five months after the judgment had been obtained. It was more that six years after the judgment was obtained. No prior leave of court 9
10 to issue a writ of execution to enforce a judgment pursuant to O 46 r. 2(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ( RHC ) had been obtained. (paragraph 11, page 321 of the judgment). (2) The phrase who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment in the proviso to s 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 must be a person who is entitled to enforce a final judgment without prior leave of court. If when a bankruptcy notice is issued, the judgment is more than six years old, the judgment creditor is not in a position to execute the judgment without the prior leave of court. In such a case, leave under O 46 r 2 of the RHC must be obtained. In the instant case, since the notice was issued some 10 years and five months after the judgment had been obtained, the appellant was not a person who for the time being was entitled to enforce a final judgment in the proviso to s 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act In such a case, leave under O 46 r 2 of the RHC should have been obtained by the appellant. Since no leave had been obtained, it was not in a position to execute the judgment. Thus, it was not entitled to issue the notice. On this ground alone, the notice 10
12 clerical error and arithmetic as the Court had functus officio unless there s a provision to say otherwise. [18] In relation to the claim that there was a long delay by the JD, the JC referred to two cases namely, Re Jonathan Chelliah Ex P Industrial & Commercial Insurance (M) Bhd [2007] 7 CLJ 132 and the case of Re Seow Yin Fong: Ex Parte: United Orient Leasing Company Berhad & Another Case [1994] 2 CLJ 845. In the former case, counsel pointed to the decision: The debtor has all the opportunities to contest the judgment creditor s claim at the earlier stages. This court must therefore consider the interest of the creditors.who will be greatly prejudiced should the adjudication and receiving orders be set aside at this juncture. (emphasis made by JC) [19] The JC s main contention is that the Bankruptcy Notice filed after 10 years does not hinder JC to file against the JD as the issuance of bankruptcy notice is not a writ of execution but a judgment. The counsel argued that since it is an action to bring upon a judgment, it is within the limitation period of 12 years and therefore no 12
14 the date of the judgment pursuant to Order 46 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012 ). [13] It was contended by the learned counsel for the JD that the ruling in the Dr Shamsul case [supra] had retrospective effect in the sense that it had the effect of requiring the JC to first obtain leave of court before it could execute against the JD upon the judgment that it obtained against the JD more than 6 years ago. [14] It must be noted that before the apex Court decided the way it did in the Dr. Shamsul case [supra], the then prevailing judicial review on the matter was encapsulated in the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Ambank (M) Bhd v Tan Tem Son & Anor [2013] 3 CLJ 317 where it was held that a bankruptcy action does not fall within the ambit of a writ of execution within the meaning of O.46 r.2 of the Rules of High Court Premised on that ruling, the issue of whether a JC was required to obtain prior leave of Court before it could begin a bankruptcy proceedings based on a final judgment which was 14
15 obtained more than six years prior did not therefore arise. In short, no such leave was necessary to be obtained by the JC. [15] After considering the able submissions by both learned counsel, we were of the view that the ruling in the Dr. Shamsul case [supra] was generally prospective. [16] It is apparent that there was nothing in the decision of the apex Court in Dr. Shamsul case [supra] that it was meant to have a retrospective effect.. [17] If indeed it was to be applicable retrospectively, it could only be so applied in a very limited and circumscribed circumstances.. (emphasized by counsel) [22] The counsel for the JC submitted that following the recent case of Hamzah Bin Mat Sah v Ambank (M) Berhad (supra), Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan kes yang telah diputuskan tersebut, walaupun Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa adalah satu keperluan untuk JC mendapatkan kebenaran untuk 15
17 tahun dari Penghakiman bertarikh selaras dengan Aturan 46 kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; 2. Pemiutang Penghakiman tidak berada dalam kedudukan untuk melaksanakan Penghakiman tersebut selepas tempoh enam (6) tahun dari Penghakiman bertarikh tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [25] In the affidavit filed in support of her application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, JD deposed as follows: 6. Saya dinasihati oleh peguamcara saya dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Notis Kebankrapan tersebut adalah tidak dan perlu diketepikan dengan serta merta di mana selaras dengan Aturan 46 kaedah 2(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan kehendak mandatori Seksyen 3(1)(i) Akta Kebankrapan 1967 di mana Pemiutang Penghakiman yang berniat untuk menguatkuasakan mana-mana Penghakiman atau Perintah selepas tempoh enam (6) tahun atau lebih sejak tarikh Penghakiman atau Perintah, perlu mendapatkan suatu kebenaran Mahkamah yang 17
18 Mulia ini untuk melaksanakan Penghakiman atau Perintah tersebut. 7. Saya sesungguhnya percaya dan menyatakan bahawa JC gagal untuk memohon kebenaran Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dan Notis Kebankrapan bertarikh telah dikeluarkan tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah yang Mulia ini selepas lebih kurang 10 tahun dari tarikh Penghakiman bertarikh untuk melaksanakan Penghakiman tersebut terhadap saya.. [26] The JC did not deny that no prior leave to execute under Order 46 rule 2(1)(a) of the ROC 2012 was obtained but contended that the bankruptcy notice and the proceedings involved including the RO & AO was made prior to the Dr Shamsul Bahar (supra) case which was decided on In addition, the Counsel argued that the leave from Court following Order 46 r. 2(1)(a) is not needed, relying on the authorities Perwira Affin Bank v Lim Ah Hee [2004] 3 MLJ 253 and Ambank (M) Bhd (Formerly Known as AmFinance Bhd) v Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal in supporting the contention that a bankruptcy proceeding is not a writ of execution but an action on 18
19 judgment and as such, bankruptcy notice can be served without leave within the 12 years period. [27] In summary, the cases put forward by the JC encompasses the law that the bankruptcy proceeding is not a writ of execution and therefore Order 46 r.2 of the ROC 2012 did not apply to bankruptcy proceedings; the bankruptcy proceeding is an action upon a judgment within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 where the limitation period is of 12 years and that there was nothing in Dr. Shamsul s case to have a retrospective effect. [28] The main contention here is that when the bankruptcy notice was issued after six years, whether the JC is entitled to enforce the judgment within the meaning of section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 without prior leave of court. [29] Section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 provides: (1) A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy. (i) If a creditor has obtained a final judgment or final order against him for any amount and execution thereon not having been stayed has served on 19
20 him a bankruptcy notice under this Act requiring him to pay the judgment debtor or sum ordered to be paid in accordance with the terms of the judgment or order, and he does not within 7 days after service of the notice comply with the requirements of the notice.. Provided that for the purposes of this paragraph any person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment or final order shall be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final judgment or final order;. [30] There have been a number of cases decided whether a person who is entitled to enforce a judgment requires the prior leave of court. However before we delve into the cases, a quick look at the law requiring the leave following Order 46 r.2(1)(a) of the ROC [31] Order 46 rule 2(1)(a) of the ROC 2012 provides that, When leave to issue any writ of execution is necessary (O 46 r2) 2 (1) A writ of execution to enforce a judgment or order may not be issued without the leave of the Court in the following cases: 20
21 (a) where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order; (b) (2) Paragraph (1) is without prejudice to any written law or rule by which a person is required to obtain leave of the Court for the issue of a writ of execution or to proceed to execution on or otherwise the enforcement of a judgment order... [32] Referring to the first paragraph of rule 2 at part (1), the words a writ of execution to enforce a judgment or order, the word writ of execution is given the meaning under rule 1 of the same Order which includes a writ of seizure and sale, a writ of possession and a writ of delivery. The term includes means that the list is not exhaustive and it had been decided that bankruptcy proceedings is covered under Order 46 rule 1: Tengku Iskandar Tengku Ahmad v Sime Bank Bhd [2001] 7 CLJ 560. [33] The writ of execution definition can be found in Black s Law Dictionary, (Second Edition) which means a writ to put in force the 21
22 judgment or decree of a court. Lord Denning in Re Overseas Aviation Engineering (GB) Ltd [1962] 3 ALL ER 12 stated that execution means, quite simply, the process for enforcing or giving effect to the judgment of the court. [34] Prior to the case of Dr. Shamsul Bahar (supra), the cases attributed by the counsel for the JD which I had the benefit of reading, provides the law that a judgment creditor must be in a position to issue execution on the judgment at the time when he issued the bankruptcy notice. [35] To put it simply, this would mean that the judgment creditor who seeks to make the judgment debtor bankrupt must have in his hands a final judgment that can be enforced: Ambank (M) Berhad v Raymond Yong Kim Yoong [2007] SGHC 172 at paragraph 14. In the case where six years or more had lapsed since obtaining the final judgment or final order, the person is no longer entitled to enforce that final judgment or order unless he has obtained prior leave of the Court by virtue of Order 46 r. 2(1)(a). 22
23 [36] In the case of Ambank (M) Bhd (formerly known as AmFinance Bhd) v Tan Tem Son and another appeal [2013] 3 MLJ 179; [2013] 3 CLJ 317, which relied on the case Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Lim Ah Sim Ah Hee [2004] 3 MLJ 253; [2004] 2 CLJ 787, the Federal Court held that the phrase any person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment in the proviso to section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 does not require a judgment creditor to obtain leave pursuant to Order 46 r.2(1)(a) of the Rules of High Court 1980 prior to initiating a bankruptcy proceeding based on a final judgment which has been obtained more than six years ago. However, the Tan Tem Son (supra) case was reconsidered by a different panel in the Federal Court in the case of Dr. Shamsul Bahar bin Abdul Kadir v RHB Bank Bhd and another appeal [2015] 4 MLJ 1 which did not follow the decision of Tan Tem Son (supra) case. [37] The case of Dr. Shamsul Bahar Bin Abdul Kadir v RHB Bank Berhad [2015] 4 CLJ 561 discussed at length the background to the proviso which entails the words execution thereon not having been stayed that was borrowed from the English Bankruptcy Act of The meaning of the words execution thereon not having been stayed was first considered by the English Court of Appeal in Re ex parte 23
24 Woodall (1884) 13 QBD 479 where it was held that a creditor must be in a position, when he issued the bankruptcy notice, to issue immediate execution upon the judgment. [38] Dr. Shamsul Bahar (supra) case also referred to the Singapore s case of Ambank (M) Berhad v Raymond Yong Kim Yoong [2007] SGHC 172 where the Singapore Rules of Court Order 46 r 2(1)(a) is in pari materia with ROC 2012 Order 46 r 2(1)(a). In that case, Ambank (M) obtained judgment against the judgment debtor in Malaysia for failing to honour his obligations under a personal guarantee. The judgment was registered in Singapore almost six years later. Ambank (M) then instituted a bankruptcy proceedings against the judgment debtor in Singapore after almost 12 years. The High Court of Singapore held that the registered judgment was no longer enforceable by execution in Singapore without leave of the court because of almost 12 years lapsed since the Malaysian judgment was registered following Order 46 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2006). [39] The learned High Court Judge of Singapore made a comparison to the old Bankruptcy Act where the words execution thereon not 24
25 having been stayed were used in contrast to its present law, under its section 61(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20,2000 Rev Ed), where the words which is enforceable by execution are used and stated that, the court had always insisted that, although the question of an execution of a judgment does not arise when a bankruptcy petition is presented, a judgment creditor who seeks to make the judgment debtor bankrupt on the basis of an unsatisfied judgment debt must have in his hands a final judgment that can be enforced forthwith or immediately. As such, where the leave of the court is required for whatever reason before a judgment may be enforced, such leave must be obtained before a person can be made bankrupt on the basis of that judgment. [40] In the case of Amfraser Securities Pte Ltd v Poh Gaik Lye [2016] 4 MLJ 314, the Federal Court held that a person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment in the proviso to section 3(1)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 must be a person who is entitled to enforce a final judgment without prior leave of court. It also held that, if when the bankruptcy notice is issued the judgment was more than six years old, then the judgment creditor is not in a position to execute the 25
26 judgment without the prior leave of court. The leave under Order 46 r.2 of the RHC must be obtained. [41] This Court finds that the counsel for the JC s submission on the issue of non-retrospective is without basis as the law requiring leave from court was in place under the Rules of Court 1980, now replaced by the ROC I agree with the counsel for the JD that section 3 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 was the law in place but I am more inclined to say that the law under Order 46 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 1980 now replaced by ROC 2012 which provides the leave requirement had also been in place. This important element was also reflected in the case of Dr. Shamsul Bahar (supra) where the law referred was Order 46 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court [42] To further strengthen my point, there have been other cases where the Court had exercised discretion in granting leave under Order 46 r 2(1)(a). In Tio Chee Heng v Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1981] 1 MLJ 227, a Federal Court Kota Kinabalu decision, it was an appeal from the decision of the judge to grant leave to issue execution against the appellant on two judgments entered more than six years ago. The first action was in respect of a charge to secure the 26
27 repayment of a considerable sum of money advanced to a company of which the appellant was the sole proprietor and the other action was for repayment of the overdraft granted to the appellant. The appellant never contended against the explanation by the Bank that the reason for the delay in executing judgment against him was to give him time during the negotiations for settlement and the basis for the delay in seeking leave from Court was allowed. [43] In the case of Public Bank Bhd v Seato Trading (M) SDn Bhd & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 165, the plaintiff had applied for leave for execution against the third defendant in respect of arrears after more than six years had passed from the date of judgment. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that although six years had lapsed from the date of the judgment, no injustice or prejudice would be caused to the third defendant to make repayment and the plaintiff was only protecting its own interest by not putting further pressure on the third defendant as it would jeopardize the settlement of the debt and that the court should not dismiss plaintiff s application because of the delay. The appeal was allowed. 27
28 [44] The law in United Kingdom as explained in Halsbury s Laws of England (Fifth Edition) on the writ of execution to enforce a judgment or order may not be issued without the permission of the court where six years or more have elapsed since the date of judgment or order, had been retained in the United Kingdom s Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Sch 1 Rules of Supreme Court Order 46 r 2(1)(a) which corresponds to our ROC [45] Based on the foregoing, I am bound by Order 42 r 2(1)(a) of the ROC 2012 and the Federal Court decisions in Dr. Shamsul Bahar (supra) case and Amfraser Securities (supra) case. I have answered the main ground in the affirmative, that is the JC who commences the bankruptcy proceedings after more than 6 years have lapsed from the date of judgment, must obtain the prior leave of Court following Order 42 r 2(1)(a) of the ROC I allowed the appeal with cost. Dated: 21 June 2017 (DATIN ZALITA BINTI DATO HJ. ZAIDAN) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court 28
Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA
1 PP v. HO HUAH TEONG COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR LAMIN MOHD YUNUS, PCA; ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; ABDUL KADIR SULAIMAN, JCA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: P09-3-97 3 AUGUST 2001 [2001] 3 CLJ 722 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC)-676-04/2014 BETWEEN ZAMIL STEEL VIETNAM BUILDINGS CO. LTD. - APPELLANT AND G.T.K. BERHAD (Company No.: 198500-P)
Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA
1 M/S LAKSAMANA REALTY SDN BHD v. GOH ENG HWA COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; MOHD NOOR AHMAD, JCA; ABDUL AZIZ MOHAMAD, JCA CIVIL APPEAL NOS: M-02-347-2001, M-02-388-2001 & M-02-530-2001
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02-2133-2011 ANTARA BOUNTY DYNAMICS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai MEDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) PERAYU DAN CHOW TAT MING DAN 175
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN SIVIL NO. J-01(IM) /2014 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN SIVIL NO. J-01(IM)-296-08/2014 ANTARA KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI, bagi Harta Goh Ah Kai, Bankrap PERAYU DAN 1. GOH AH KAI RESPONDEN- 2. PARKWAY
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W ANTARA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W 02 1329 2005 ANTARA UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD DAN UJA SDN BHD PERAYU RESPONDEN (Dalam perkara Saman Pemula No. S3-24-2162-2004
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 1 Ogos 2012 P.U. (A) 232 KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH (PINDAAN) 2012 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ AKTA MAHKAMAH KEHAKIMAN 1964 AKTA KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH RENDAH 1955 KAEDAH-KAEDAH
Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA)
Legal Updates April 2015 Cases Administrative Law Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA) Whether (i) minister
Statutory Declarations 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 783 STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT (Revised 2016)
Statutory Declarations 1 STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1960 (Revised 2016) REVISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION OF LAWS ACT 1968 2016 2 Laws of Malaysia
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN RAYUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN: WA /2017
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN RAYUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN: WA-25-193-07/2017 Dalam perkara sesuatu keputusan Ketua Pengarah Kastam dan Eksais yang
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(C)(A) /2016 BETWEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(C)(A)-1400-08/2016 BETWEEN 1. JAN DE NUL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD... APPELLANTS (COMPANY NO. 414113-K) 2. JAN DE NUL GROUP (SOFIDRA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B /2014 ANTARA PROFIL SAUJANA (M) SDN BHD DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-02-857-05/2014 PROFIL SAUJANA (M) SDN BHD AZABAR HOLDINGS ANTARA DAN PERAYU RESPONDEN (DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH
KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 29 Jun 2011 29 June 2011 P.U. (A) 210 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ PUBLISHED
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-03(IM)-85-07/2014 ANTARA DAN MEDTRONIC AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA [BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN] RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-03(IM)-85-07/2014 ANTARA AZMAN BIN JUFRI DAN MEDTRONIC AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED PERAYU RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C-20-09/2014 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR DAN
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C--09/14 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR PLAINTIF DAN 1. PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD (No. Syarikat
(RD/T&C/SDB/ENG/JUN2016) Page 1 of 5
Setem Hasil Revenue CIMB BANK BERHAD (13491-P) Stamp PERJANJIAN SEWA PETI SIMPANAN KESELAMATAN / AGREEMENT FOR HIRE OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOX No.: CIMB Bank Berhad (13491-P) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Bank
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] /2014 RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] /2014
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] 1840-10/2014 RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] 1810-10/2014 ANTARA 1. AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 2. TEE SOONG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SUMMONS WRIT NO: BETWEEN AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SUMMONS WRIT NO: 22-753-2005 BETWEEN WING FAH ENTERPRISE SDN BHD PLAINTIFF AND MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (M)
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENTS IN MALAYSIA
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENTS IN MALAYSIA INTRODUCTION The Malaysian Civil Judicial system is based on common law, much of which has been codified by statute. The hierarchy of courts in Malaysia
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: K-01(NCVC)(W)-10-01/2014 BETWEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: K-01(NCVC)(W)-10-01/2014 BETWEEN PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI KEDAH APPELLANT AND CBH RUBBER SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO: 945835-A)
MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Reports/2002/Volume 2/MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN - [2002] 2 MLJ 718-20 February 2002 [2002] 2 MLJ 718 MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN COURT OF APPEAL (KUALA
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO (P) ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 02-4-2004(P) ANTARA 1. JOCELINE TAN POH CHOO 2. THE GROUP EDITOR, NEW STRAITS TIMES 3. THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (M) BHD Perayu-
Wong Kian Wah v Ng Kien Boon
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA; Abdul Rahman Sebli, JCA; Mary Lim, JCA Wong Kian Wah v Ng Kien Boon Citation: [2018] MYCA 230 Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. W 02(NCVC)(W)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12NCVC-7-01/2016 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12NCVC-7-01/2016 ANTARA OBNET SDN BHD (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI INTELLIGENT EDGE SOLUTIONS SDN BHD)
KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSE EKUTUAN 29 Jun 2011 29 June 2011 P.U. (A) 208 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA [GUAMAN SIVIL NO: S ] (NO 2) ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA [GUAMAN SIVIL NO: S-22-868-2008] (NO 2) ANTARA PALM SPRING JMB (SIJIL NO: 0046) Suatu badan yang ditubuhkan di bawah Akta
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W /2014 BETWEEN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02-1480-09/2014 BETWEEN ANEKA MELOR SDN. BHD. PERAYU (No. Syarikat: 0227188-T) DAN SERI SABCO (M) SDN BHD RESPONDEN (No. Syarikat:
RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W Antara. 5. Kamil Ahmad Merican. Perayu-Perayu. Dan. Didengar bersama-sama dengan
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02-1003-2009 Antara 1. Ace Heights (M) Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat 400572 D) 2. Dato Abdullah B. Mohd Yusof 3. Abbas Bin Yaacob 4. Harith
2. The following group of persons shall not be eligible to participate in this Contest:
MAYBELLINE MALAYSIA #MAYBELLINETOPSPENDER CONTEST Eligibility 1. This MAYBELLINE MALAYSIA #MAYBELLINETOPSPENDER CONTEST [ Contest ] is organised by L Oreal Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. [328418-A] [ the Organiser
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: J /2012 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: J-02-2627-11/2012 ANTARA MILLENNIUM MEDICARE SERVICES Mendakwa sebagai firma PERAYU DAN NAGADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN [CIVIL SUIT NO: ] BETWEEN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN [CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-510-2003] BETWEEN A & AT ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS SDN BHD... PLAINTIFF AND PERNEC CORPORATION BHD (NO SYARIKAT:
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial
Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960
Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: BA-A72NCvC /2017. Antara
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: BA-A72NCvC-384-03/2017 Antara SHAMSUDIN BIN MOHD YUSOF (NO K/P: 500521-05-5017) PLAINTIF Dan SUHAILA BINTI SULAIMAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: MT(2)22-NCVC-44-03/2013 ANTARA MUSTOFA BIN HUSSIN PLAINTIF DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: MT(2)22-NCVC-44-03/2013 ANTARA MUSTOFA BIN HUSSIN PLAINTIF DAN RAHIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (Interlokutari
D.R. 48/96 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.
D.R. 48/96 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. [ ] MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDANG oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan
JUDGMENT (Court enclosure no. 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22IP-37-09/2017 BETWEEN DARUL FIKIR (Business Registration No.: 000624088-H)
Setem (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 14/2010 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Setem Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa
Setem (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 14/2010 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Setem 1949. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa
Mohamad Ridzuan Bin Zamhor v Pendakwa Raya
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohtarudin Baki, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Mohamad Ridzuan Bin Zamhor v Pendakwa Raya Citation: [2018] MYCA 30 Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah
Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA
1 DATO' SAMSUDIN ABU HASSAN v. ROBERT KOKSHOORN COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; ARIFFIN ZAKARIA, JCA; MOHD GHAZALI YUSOFF, JCA CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-387-02 28 MAY 2003 [2003] 3
PERINTAH UNIVERSITI DAN KOLEJ UNIVERSITI (PERLEMBAGAAN UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA) (PINDAAN) 2012
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 22 November 2012 22 November 2012 P.U. (A) 401 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERINTAH UNIVERSITI DAN KOLEJ UNIVERSITI (PERLEMBAGAAN UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA) (PINDAAN)
PROSEDUR SIVIL: penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - Tidak teratur - Menyalahi undang-undang - Bidangkuasa dan budibicara Mahkamah.
1 Boon Kee Holdings Sdn. Bhd. & Yang Lain LWN. Hotel Gallant Bhd. & Yang Lain Mahkamah Tinggi malaya, Pulau Pinang ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD SAMAN PEMULA NO. 24-988-89 13 JUN 1991 [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 516; [1991]
Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v CIMB Bank Berhad
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA; Yeoh Wee Siam, JCA; Hanipah Farikullah, JCA Reebok (M) Sdn Bhd v CIMB Bank Berhad Citation: [2018] MYCA 276 Suit Number: Civil Appeal
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(IM)(NCC) ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(IM)(NCC)-3609-2010 ANTARA KEJURUTERAAN BINTAI KINDENKO SDN. BHD.. PERAYU DAN (1) NAM FATT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No:
EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22-156-2008 ANTARA NIK RUSDI BIN NIK SALLEH (Pemilik Tunggal Anura Hane)... PLAINTIF DAN SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING
Held (dismissing the appeal with costs) Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (dissenting):
1 PERWIRA HABIB BANK MALAYSIA BHD v. LUM CHOON REALTY SDN BHD FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA STEVE SHIM, CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK); ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, FCJ; PAJAN SINGH GILL, FCJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 02-13-2003
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18(12)/4-411/15 ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL DAN EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD AWARD NO: 857 OF 2017
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18(12)/4-411/15 ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL DAN EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD AWARD NO: 857 OF 2017 Before : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ CHAIRMAN
Debtors 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 256 DEBTORS ACT Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006
Debtors 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 256 DEBTORS ACT 1957 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION
SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM MB UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM MB 091119 UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM A project report submitted in partial fulfillment
KONTRAK Diputuskan: [1] [2] [3] [4]
1 MOH & ASSOCIATES (M) SDN. BHD LWN. FOCUS PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. & SATU LAGI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD GUAMAN SIVIL NO. 23-71-88 29 OGOS 1990 [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 417; [1990]
1 YONG TECK LEE v. HARRIS MOHD SALLEH & ANOR COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; MOHD SAARI YUSOFF, JCA; K C VOHRAH, JCA CIVIL APPEAL NO: S-04-75-2001 6 JUNE 2002 [2002] 3 CLJ 422 CIVIL
COMPOUNDED INTEREST IN FATAL ACCIDENT AND PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN MALAYSIA: THE DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
COMPOUNDED INTEREST IN FATAL ACCIDENT AND PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN MALAYSIA: THE DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH Nazli Mahdzir School of Law, UUM COLGIS, Sintok, Malaysia, mnazli@uum.edu.my Abstract
DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: /2016
1 DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: 44-103-08/2016 MOHD FAHMI REDZA BIN MOHD ZARIN LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO:
COMPANY LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE Held: [1] [2]
1 TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ZAIN & ORS v. UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD & ORS HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-265-95 12 OCTOBER 1998 [1998] 4 CLJ 321 COMPANY LAW: Suit by Company
UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
ii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA iii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-01(NCVC)(W) /2016 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-01(NCVC)(W)-308-08/2016 ANTARA 1. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN DALAM NEGERI KOPERASI DAN KEPENGGUNAAN.. PERAYU-
PERMOHONAN PEMBAHARUAN PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF PERMIT
Borang SPAN/P/2 JADUAL KEEMPAT [subkaedah 8(2)/subrule 8(2)] AKTA INDUSTRI PERKHIDMATAN AIR 2006 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 KAEDAH-KAEDAH INDUSTRI PERKHIDMATAN AIR (PERMIT) 2007 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY
ANCOM LOGISTICS BERHAD (6614-W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
(Incorporated in Malaysia) MINUTES OF THE 52 ND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD AT SELANGOR BALLROOM 1, DORSETT GRAND SUBANG, JALAN SS12/1, 47500 SUBANG JAYA SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ON THURSDAY,
For the appellants Lim Kian Leong (Tony Ng TT, Keith Kwan & Rachel Tan Pak Theen with him); M/s Mohd Zain & Co
NGAN & NGAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR v. CENTRAL MERCANTILE CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD [2010] 3 CLJ 818 COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA HELILIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA, KN SEGARA JCA, RAMLY ALI JCA [CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-85-2007]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: P /2013 BETWEEN AND
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02-542-03/2013 BETWEEN KHOO TENG CHYE APPELLANT AND 1. CEKAL BERJASA SDN BHD RESPONDENTS 2. LEMBAMAN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD [Dalam
MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT 10 11 12 13 (KOTA KINABALU SESSIONS COURT CRIMINAL
ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD
374 ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD Industrial Court, Johor Mohd Azari Harun Award No: 515 of 2016 [Case No: 16/4-157/15] 27 April 2016 Dismissal: Misconduct due to poor performance Claimant dismissed
EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM ABX CORPORATION SDN BHD ( V) & UTS GROUP OF COMPANIES
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Please read the application form carefully and complete it in BLOCK LETTERS. 2. Please return the completed application form together with one (1) recent passport size photograph and photocopy
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCC)(W) /2013 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCC)(W)-2303-10/2013 ANTARA SILVER CORRIDOR SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 367720-V) - PERAYU DAN 1. GALLANT ACRES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat:
MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT FEDERAL TERRITORY, LABUAN. CIVIL CASE NO: LBN-24NCvC-6/ BETWEEN SEJATI SDN. BHD..
MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT FEDERAL TERRITORY, LABUAN CIVIL CASE NO: LBN-24NCvC-6/8-2016 BETWEEN SEJATI SDN. BHD.. PLAINTIFF AND DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS.. 1 ST DEFENDANT SABAH
1. Overseas Union Bank Ltd. v. Chuah Ah Sai [1989] 1 LNS 2; [1989] 3 MLJ En. Paul Chin (Tetuan Gan Teik Chee & Ho) bagi pihak Plaintif.
1 LOO CHEONG FOO BERNIAGA SEBAGAI SHARIKAT LOO BROTHERS v. MOHAMED ABDUL KADER A/L SHAUKAT ALI HIGH COURT, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J SAMAN PEMULA NO. 24-1077-95 24 SEPTEMBER 1996 [1996] 1 LNS
NYLEX (MALAYSIA) BERHAD (9378-T) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
(Incorporated in Malaysia) MINUTES OF THE 47TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD AT SELANGOR BALLROOM 1, DORSETT GRAND SUBANG, SS12/1, 47500 SUBANG JAYA, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, ON THURSDAY, 19
CIRCULAR 2017/02. Tick ( ) where applicable. Please reply to any of Sara Worldwide Vacations Berhad Member Service Centres by 20 September 2017.
CIRCULAR 2017/02 Dear Valued Members, Warmest greetings from Easturia Vacation Club! 1. EASTURIA VACATION CLUB 6 th MEMBERS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING We are pleased to inform that the 6 th Members Annual
Bankruptcy (Amendment) 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) ACT 2017 2 Laws of Malaysia Date of Royal Assent...... 10 May 2017 Date of publication in the Gazette......... 18 May 2017 Publisher s Copyright
NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Seventeenth (17th) Annual General Meeting ( AGM ) of the Company will be held at Ballroom 1 & 2, Setia City Convention Centre, No. 1, Jalan Setia
GABUNGAN KOMPUTER NASIONAL MALAYSIA ( M) Incorporated In Malaysia Company Limited By Guarantee
GABUNGAN KOMPUTER NASIONAL MALAYSIA (175039-M) Incorporated In Malaysia Company Limited By Guarantee MINUTES OF THE TWENTY FOURTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE GABUNGAN KOMPUTER NASIONAL MALAYSIA HELD
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAM DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO : NA /2017 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAM DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO : NA-44-29-08/2017 ANTARA AL FAITOURI BIN KAMAL PEMOHON DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN
WARTAKERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 12 Oktober 2017 12 October 2017 P.U. (A) 314 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERINTAH KAWALAN HARGA DAN ANTIPENCATUTAN (PENANDAAN HARGA BARANGAN HARGA TERKAWAL) (NO. 6) 2017 PRICE
Held (dismissing the appeal): Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:
1 SEJAHRATUL DURSINA v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, FCJ; PAJAN SINGH GILL, FCJ; ALAUDDIN MOHD SHERIFF, FCJ; RICHARD MALANJUM, FCJ; AUGUSTINE PAUL, FCJ CRIMINAL
Sharon Song Choy Leng (M/s Gan Teik Chee & HO), Krishna Kumari a/p Ratnam (M/s Cheng, Leong & Co) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [LAMPIRAN 29]
1 DCB BANK BHD (CO NO 6171-M) v. PRO-VEST SDN BHD (CO NO 269987H) & ORS HIGH COURT, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J RAYUAN SIVIL NO 22-210-97 1 MARCH 1999 [1999] 1 LNS 368 CIVIL PROCEDURE Counsel: Sharon
MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD ( MRCB OR THE COMPANY )
MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD ( MRCB OR THE COMPANY ) MANAGEMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN KWASA UTAMA SDN BHD ( KUSB ) AND MRCB FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MRCB AS THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR IN CONNECTION WITH
ATLAN HOLDINGS BHD. ( W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
Extract of Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth Annual General Meeting of the Company held at the Meeting Room, Wisma Atlan, 8 Persiaran Kampung Jawa, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 11:00
BETWEEN KAMARUSHAM BIN ZAKARIA... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S-58-10/2016 (DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN PASIR MAS, KELANTAN NO. SPM(A)62-41-09/2016) BETWEEN KAMARUSHAM
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(W) /2015 ANTARA PASUPATHY A/L KANAGASABY DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(W)-1683-10/2015 ANTARA PASUPATHY A/L KANAGASABY. PERAYU DAN 1. MASTERSKILL (M) SDN BHD 2. SYARIKAT KEMACAHAYA SDN BHD. RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN
Majlis Perbandaran Seremban v Era Baru Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, JCA; Abdul Rahman Sebli, JCA; Suraya Othman, JCA Majlis Perbandaran Seremban v Era Baru Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA
ATLAN HOLDINGS BHD. ( W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
Extract of Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Annual General Meeting of the Company held at the Lily Room, 1st Floor, The Zon All Suites Residences On The Park, 161-D, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday,
Legal Aspects of Islamic Finance LCA4592 DR. ZULKIFLI HASAN
Legal Aspects of Islamic Finance LCA4592 DR. ZULKIFLI HASAN Contents n Islamic finance cases n 1987-2002 n 2003-2007 n 2008-2011 1987-2002 n Tinta Press Sdn Berhad v BIMB (1987) 1 MLJ 474; 1 CLJ 474: IJarah
VALID AND INVALID VARIATION OMISSION OF WORKS MOTHILAL A/L MUNIANDY
VALID AND INVALID VARIATION OMISSION OF WORKS MOTHILAL A/L MUNIANDY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science (Construction Contract
THIS CIRCULAR IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION If you are in any doubt as to the course of action you should take, you should consult your stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant
the court has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction on an ex parte application in urgent and exceptional cases;
[1986] 1 MLJ 256 BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BHD v TINTA PRESS SDN BHD & ORS OCJ KUALA LUMPUR ZAKARIA YATIM J CIVIL SUIT NO C2518 OF 1984 20 August 1985 Practice and Procedure Interlocutory mandatory injunction
EXTENSION OF TIME IN COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NOOR HALWANI BT MOKHTAR UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
EXTENSION OF TIME IN COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NOOR HALWANI BT MOKHTAR UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EXTENSION OF TIME IN COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NOOR HALWANI BT MOKHTAR A
Datuk Wira SM Faisal bin SM Nasimuddin Kamal lwn Datin Wira Emilia binti Hanafi & 4 lagi
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Unreported/2017/Volume/Datuk Wira SM Faisal bin SM Nasimuddin Kamal lwn Datin Wira Emilia binti Hanafi & 4 lagi - [2017] MLJU 1449-28 August 2017 [2017] MLJU 1449 Datuk Wira
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007 Before : TUAN CHEW SOO HO - CHAIRMAN Venue : The Industrial Court
PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN A master s project report submitted
Yong Lai Ling (P) lwn Ng Seow Poe dan lain-lain
351 Yong Lai Ling (P) lwn Ng Seow Poe dan lain-lain MKM TN (KUL LUMPUR) UMN NO 22NV-244 05 TUN 2014 KMLUNM S PK 8 OOS 2014 Prosedur Sivil Luar aturan Pembaikian Sama ada ketidakpatuhan aturan wajib boleh
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B /2016
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-164-09/2016 ANTARA ZI PRODUCTIONS SDN. BHD. (NO PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT:
APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956.
APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956. The common law of English and rules of equity is only applicable
BETWEEN. LAI CHENG OOI (f) (the executrix of the estate of Lee Tain Lee Thien Chiung, deceased) AND
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. S-01(IM)(NCVC)-145-04/2016 [Kota Kinabalu High Court OS No. BKI-24NCVC-44/5-2015] BETWEEN LAI CHENG OOI (f) (the
D.R. 40/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kastam DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut:
D.R. 40/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kastam 1967. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa 1. (1) Akta ini
2022 © lawsdocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback
To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy. I agree.