DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: /2013

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: /2013"

Transcription

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: /2013 PER : YASMIN PEREMA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: ). PERAYU/ PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN EX-PARTE: HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD (No. Syarikat: X) (yang telah mengambil alih segala asset dan liabiliti Credit Corporation Malaysia Berhad melalui dua Perintah Letakhak bertarikh 29/12/2000 dan 27/7/2004).RESPONDEN/ PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1

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JC had in 2005 executed through one Writ of Seizure and Sale at the Kuala Lumpur Session Court (Execution No: ) but was withdrawn due to payment made by JD on for RM10, Another bankruptcy notice was filed against the JD at the Kuala Lumpur High Court No.D but was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after an agreement for JD to make payment on until [5] The JC claimed that the JD again failed to make payments and filed a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

6 (n) Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Yasmin Perema Binti Abdullah pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Afidavit Sokongan JD tersebut ); (o) Afidavit Jawapan Pemiutang Penghakiman yang diikrarkan oleh Esoda a/p Krishnasamy pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Afidavit Jawapan JC tersebut ); (p) Afidavit Jawapan yang diikrarkan oelh Yasmin Perema Binti Abdullah pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Afidavit Jawapan JD tersebut ); (q) Afidavit Jawapan Pemiutang Penghakiman Kedua yang diikrarkan oleh affirmed by Esod a/p Krishnasamy pada (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Afidavit Jawapan JC (2) tersebut ). (r) (s) Written submission of JD; and Written submission of JC. JD s Submission [8] The learned counsel for JD submitted the only ground for the appeal, that is the JC had failed to obtain leave of the Court under Order 46 r. 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) before 6

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

11 ought to be set aside. (paragraph 15, page 323 of the judgment). [15] Counsel for the JD submitted that based on the Federal Court s decisions, the bankruptcy notice is to be set aside as it is bad in law, a nullity ab initio and that the RO & AO cannot stand and must be set aside. Respondent s/jc s counsel: [16] The JC in this case advanced several grounds, the main ground is that the leave from the Court is not needed. The JC claimed that at all material time the Bankruptcy Notice had been served within the extended period. The JC objected to JD s application for the reason that it was done after 2 years and 7 months that is after the RO & AO had been entered on and without giving any reasons to support the application to set aside. JC submitted that JD s application is without bona fide. [17] JC also submitted that the Order had been issued and registered and thus cannot be set aside or amended except to correct 11

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

13 leave is required to be obtained and relied on the case Perwira Affin Bank v Lim Ah Hee [2004] 3 MLJ 253. [20] The JC submitted the authority, the case of Ambank (M) Bhd (Formerly known as AmFinance Bhd) v Tan Tem Son & Another Appeal [2013] 3 MLJ 179 that the bankruptcy proceeding is not a writ of execution within the meaning of Order 46 rule 2 of the ROC and since it is an action to enforce a judgment, it comes under section 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 which provides that the limitation is of 12 years and therefore the leave from Court is not needed. [21] The JC s contention is heavily placed on a recent case of (Appeal No. B-03(IM)-12-01/2016), Hamzah Bin Mat Sah v Ambank (M) Berhad and quoted almost the whole decision in its written submission which is partly reproduced: [11] The main issue that arose for determination in this appeal had been concerned with whether leave was required to be obtained by the JC from the court before it could proceed to execute Judgment against the JD after 6 years had lapsed from 13

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

16 Penghakiman yang melebihi 6 tahun, prinsip ini hanya terpakai kepada kes-kes yang difailkan selepas kes Dr. Shamsul. Ia tidak terpakai retrospektif. Court s Finding [23] Based on the facts before this Court, it cannot be disputed that the bankruptcy notice was issued more than six years after the judgment was obtained on There was an action taken in 2005 where JC filed for Writ of Seizure and Sale but withdrawn as JD made payment on A bankruptcy notice was then issued on but was also withdrawn. The bankruptcy notice was only issued some 11 years and 8 months on In other words, on the day the bankruptcy notice was issued, more than six years had lapsed from date of judgment. [24] The JD in her Summon in Chambers of for application to set aside and/or annul the Bankruptcy Notice stated among others, 1. Pemiutang Penghakiman tidak mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah yang Mulia ini untuk mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan bertarikh selepas tempoh 10 16

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

29 SOLICITORS: APPELLANT : SATVINDER KAUR Tetuan Satvinder K &Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 3, Jalan Hujan Emas10 Oversea, Union Garden Kuala Lumpur [RUJ: SK/639/11/2014(L)] Tel: Fax: RESPONDENT : ROZANITA BINTI BASRUN Tetuan Thomas Ong Leong & Associates Peguambela dan Peguamcara Blok 3A02, Menara Mutiara Majestic No. 15, Jalan Othman 46000, Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan [RUJ NO: TOL/ /OKS] Tel: Fax:

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2015

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2015 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC-10794-12/2015 BERKENAAN : KAMALASAN A/L TANGARAJOO (NO. K/P: 850522-08-6763). PENGHUTANG

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: 11ANCVC-44-08/2016 ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: 11ANCVC-44-08/2016 ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: 11ANCVC-44-08/2016 ANTARA YEOH LIANG CHUAN (No. K/P: 481027-07-5351). PERAYU DAN JAGJIT SINGH (mendakwa sebagai

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W) /2013] ANTARA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W) /2013] ANTARA DAN DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W)-143-01/2013] ANTARA 1. MUAFAKAT KEKAL SDN BHD 2. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PALM SPRING @ DAMANSARA... PERAYU DAN 1. PESURUHJAYA

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2016 ANTARA. Dan

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2016 ANTARA. Dan DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC-384-01/16 5 ANTARA Berkenaan : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : 4401-71-5375) Dan Ex-Parte : LIM CHENG POW

More information

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) /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

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W ANTARA DAN

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

More information

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY

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

More information

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 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

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO (P) ANTARA

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-

More information

MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN

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

More information

ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENTS IN MALAYSIA

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

More information

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 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)

More information

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY

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/

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: J /2012 ANTARA

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

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W /2014 BETWEEN

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:

More information

Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960

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

More information

Held (dismissing the appeal with costs) Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (dissenting):

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

More information

D.R. 48/96 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.

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

More information

PROSEDUR SIVIL: penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - Tidak teratur - Menyalahi undang-undang - Bidangkuasa dan budibicara Mahkamah.

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]

More information

PERINTAH UNIVERSITI DAN KOLEJ UNIVERSITI (PERLEMBAGAAN UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA) (PINDAAN) 2012

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)

More information

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 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

More information

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) 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:

More information

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 UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

More information

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) /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-

More information

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 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

More information

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 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

More information

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 /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

More information

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 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

More information

ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD

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

More information

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/ 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

More information

NYLEX (MALAYSIA) BERHAD (9378-T) (Incorporated in Malaysia)

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

More information

CIRCULAR TO SHAREHOLDERS

CIRCULAR TO SHAREHOLDERS 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

More information

PERMOHONAN PEMBAHARUAN PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF PERMIT

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

More information

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. 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

More information

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD ( MRCB OR THE COMPANY )

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

More information

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) ACT

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) ACT 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

More information

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) /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

More information

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 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

More information

VALID AND INVALID VARIATION OMISSION OF WORKS MOTHILAL A/L MUNIANDY

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

More information

Held (dismissing the appeal): Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:

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

More information

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 UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN A master s project report submitted

More information

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 /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

More information

D.R. 41/94. b er nama. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [ ]

D.R. 41/94. b er nama. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [ ] D.R. 41/94 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b er nama Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [ ] MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDAN oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan Agong

More information

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO 02(f)-55-08/2015(B)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO 02(f)-55-08/2015(B) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO 02(f)-55-08/2015(B) BETWEEN 1. MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA.. APPELLANT AND 1. RAJEHGOPAL A/L VELU 2. GANASHALINGAM A/L RAJAH.. RESPONDENTS

More information

the court has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction on an ex parte application in urgent and exceptional cases;

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

More information

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING SUIT NO II BETWEEN AND

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING SUIT NO II BETWEEN AND MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING SUIT NO. 22-74-08-II BETWEEN CMS ENERGY SDN BHD (Company No.34309-A) Level 6, Wisma Mahmud Jalan Sungai Sarawak 930 Kuching, Sarawak Plaintiff

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCVC-6-02/2017 ANTARA MESRA BUDI SDN.

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCVC-6-02/2017 ANTARA MESRA BUDI SDN. DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCVC-6-02/2017 ANTARA MESRA BUDI SDN. BHD PLAINTIF DAN LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN (FELDA) DEFENDAN

More information

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 /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:

More information

PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2016

PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2016 WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 14 Mac 2016 14 March 2016 P.U. (A) 60 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING

More information

BETWEEN BUDIMAN BIN CHE MAMAT... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence)

BETWEEN BUDIMAN BIN CHE MAMAT... 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-62-12/2016 (DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN GUA MUSANG, NO: 62-09-11/2016) BETWEEN BUDIMAN BIN CHE

More information

PRESS SUMMARY BETWEEN AND JUSTICES: ARIFIN ZAKARIA (CJ), RAUS SHARIF (PCA), HASAN LAH, ZAINUN ALI AND ABU SAMAH NORDIN (FCJJ)

PRESS SUMMARY BETWEEN AND JUSTICES: ARIFIN ZAKARIA (CJ), RAUS SHARIF (PCA), HASAN LAH, ZAINUN ALI AND ABU SAMAH NORDIN (FCJJ) PRESS SUMMARY 25 FEBRUARY 2016 BETWEEN 1. PALM SPRING JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY 2. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PALM SPRING @ DAMANSARA APPELLANTS AND 1. MUAFAKAT KEKAL SDN BHD 2. PESURUHJAYA BANGUNAN MAJLIS BANDARAYA

More information

Held (dismissing the application)

Held (dismissing the application) 1 SIA CHENG SOON & ANOR v. TENGKU ISMAIL TENGKU IBRAHIM FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, CJ; ZAKI TUN AZMI, PCA; ARIFFIN ZAKARIA, FCJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 08-151-2007 (N) 15 MAY 2008 [2008]

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO /2017 ANTARA LAWAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO /2017 ANTARA LAWAN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO. 44-16-01/2017 ANTARA AZLI BIN TUAN KOB (NO. K/P : 670326-71-5309) PEMOHON LAWAN 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN

More information

ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB

ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB Abdul Aziz Ismail & Ors [2015] 2 MELR v. Royal Selangor Club 325 ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur Eddie Yeo Soon Chye Award No: 327 of 2015 [Case No: 13(25)(22)(25)/4-1255/2011]

More information

PERLEMBAGAAN BAGI PERTUBUHAN INDUK PERTUBUHAN GEOTEKNIKAL MALAYSIA (MALAYSIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY) (MGS) (BARU)

PERLEMBAGAAN BAGI PERTUBUHAN INDUK PERTUBUHAN GEOTEKNIKAL MALAYSIA (MALAYSIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY) (MGS) (BARU) PERLEMBAGAAN BAGI PERTUBUHAN INDUK PERTUBUHAN GEOTEKNIKAL MALAYSIA (MALAYSIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY) (MGS) (BARU) FASAL 1 NAMA (1) Pertubuhan ini dikenali dengan nama PERTUBUHAN GEOTEKNIKAL MALAYSIA (MALAYSIAN

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCC-10-11/2016 ANTARA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCC-10-11/2016 ANTARA DAN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCC-10-11/2016 ANTARA LEE WENG CHUN (NO.K/P: 650601-04-5269) PLAINTIF DAN 1. TAN KICK YONG (NO.K/P: 630204-01-5471)

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-22-02/2016 ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-22-02/2016 ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-22-02/2016 1. PARIS BIN ARIFF ANTARA 2. ASRINA BINTI MD MISDAR PERAYU-PERAYU DAN WAN YA BIN

More information

LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD

LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD 482 LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD Industrial Court, Johor Duncan Sikodol Award No: 167 of 2017 [Case No: 16/4-664/16] 23 January 2017 Dismissal: Probationer Pleadings Allegations of misconduct

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO. WA- 22NCVC / 2017 ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO. WA- 22NCVC / 2017 ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO. WA- 22NCVC -341-07 / 2017 ANTARA 1. A. SANTAMIL SELVI A/P ALAU MALAY @ ANNA MALAY [Wakil Administratrix

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24FC /2014 BETWEEN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD AND

IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24FC /2014 BETWEEN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD AND IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24FC-1312-10/2014 BETWEEN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PLAINTIFF AND AMROU BAKOUR DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT ENCLOSURE

More information

CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG A master s project report submitted in fulfillment

More information

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 08(F) (W) BETWEEN AND TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD (IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 08(F) (W) BETWEEN AND TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD (IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 08(F)-319-2009(W) BETWEEN DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM APPLICANT AND TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD RESPONDENT (IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA CIVIL APPEAL

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P-01(NCVC)(W) /2015 ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P-01(NCVC)(W) /2015 ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P-01(NCVC)(W)-303-09/2015 ANTARA 1. JUGAJORTHY A/P VISVANATHAN PERAYU PERTAMA 2. JUGAJORTHY A/P VISVANATHAN (Sebagai Pentadbir Harta

More information

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Rebecca Chew 6 June 2002

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Rebecca Chew 6 June 2002 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Rebecca Chew 6 June OVERVIEW ON ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN SINGAPORE (a) Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Chapter 264) (b) Reciprocal Enforcement

More information

TAWARAN MENGISI JAWATAN SECRETARY GENERAL (SG) OF AFRO-ASIAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (AARDO)

TAWARAN MENGISI JAWATAN SECRETARY GENERAL (SG) OF AFRO-ASIAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (AARDO) Ketua Eksekutif FELCRA Berhad Wisma FELCRA Lot PT 4780, Jalan Rejang 50722 KUALA LUMPUR Lembaga Kemajuan Johor Tenggara (KEJORA) Ibu Pejabat KEJORA Jalan Dato' ann, Bandar Penawar 81900 Kota Tinggi,. JOHOR.

More information

LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act A1140

LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act A1140 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act A1140 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2002 2 Laws of Malaysia ACT A1140 Date of Royal Assent... 14 January 2002 Date of publication in the Gazette......... 24 January 2002 Publisher

More information

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH Diputuskan: [1]

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH Diputuskan: [1] 1 Mohamed Abdul Kader Shaukat Ali LWN. Loo Cheong Foo Mahkamah Tinggi MALAYA, Pulau Pinang ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD GUAMAN SIVIL NO. 22-87-88 8 OKTOBER 1991 [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 699; [1991] 3 CLJ 2801 UNDANG-UNDANG

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: /2012(W) ANTARA SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI... PERAYU DAN DATUK ISHAK BIN ISMAIL...

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: /2012(W) ANTARA SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI... PERAYU DAN DATUK ISHAK BIN ISMAIL... 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 02-21-04/12(W) ANTARA SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI... PERAYU DAN DATUK ISHAK BIN ISMAIL... RESPONDEN 1 [DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

More information

COUNTRY REPORT BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

COUNTRY REPORT BRUNEI DARUSSALAM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF DYNAMIC REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 26-29 JULY 2015, BANGKOK THAILAND Introduction COUNTRY REPORT BRUNEI DARUSSALAM Brunei

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BINDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: M-02(NCVC)(W) /2016

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BINDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: M-02(NCVC)(W) /2016 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BINDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: M-02(NCVC)(W)-1142-06/2016 1. SHA KANNAN 2. KAMBARAMAN SHANMUKHAM...PERAYU PERAYU DAN 1. ARUNACHALAM A/L VENKATACHALAM 2. VENKATACHALAM

More information

ISLAMIC FINANCE LITIGATION IN MALAYSIA: AN INTRODUCTION

ISLAMIC FINANCE LITIGATION IN MALAYSIA: AN INTRODUCTION ISLAMIC FINANCE LITIGATION IN MALAYSIA: AN INTRODUCTION Seminar on An Introduction to Islamic Finance. Date Day Time Venue : 20 th July 2017 : Wednesday : 2.00 p.m. 3.30 p.m. : Perak Bar Auditorium HIZRI

More information

KAEDAH-KAEDAH SYARIKAT (MEKANISME PENYELAMAT KORPORAT) 2018 COMPANIES (CORPORATE RESCUE MECHANISM) RULES 2018

KAEDAH-KAEDAH SYARIKAT (MEKANISME PENYELAMAT KORPORAT) 2018 COMPANIES (CORPORATE RESCUE MECHANISM) RULES 2018 WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 28 Februari 2018 28 February 2018 P.U. (A) 64 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH SYARIKAT (MEKANISME PENYELAMAT KORPORAT) 2018 COMPANIES (CORPORATE RESCUE MECHANISM) RULES

More information

LAA 3064 MOOT/MOCK AND PLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

LAA 3064 MOOT/MOCK AND PLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT LAA 3064 MOOT/MOCK AND PLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CONTENTS Introduction Definition Conviction of Criminal Offence Breach of duty with regards to undertaking Dishonest and fraudulent conduct in the

More information

D.R. 5/94 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Ordinan Perkapalan Saudagar 1952.

D.R. 5/94 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Ordinan Perkapalan Saudagar 1952. D.R. 5/94 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Ordinan Perkapalan Saudagar 1952. MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDANG oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(LB) /2015 (IND) BETWEEN AND AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(LB) /2015 (IND) BETWEEN AND AND IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(LB)-285-10/2015 (IND) BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND NI KOMANG YUNINGSIH RESPONDENT AND [IN THE

More information

CLJ. Re: RULES OF COURT 2012 [P.U.(A) 205/2012] P.U.(A) 286/2012 AMENDMENTS

CLJ. Re: RULES OF COURT 2012 [P.U.(A) 205/2012] P.U.(A) 286/2012 AMENDMENTS 1 CLJ Malaysia s Leading Law Publisher 20 September 2012 Dear Sir/Madam Re: RULES OF COURT 2012 [P.U.(A) 205/2012] AMENDMENTS Thank you for your kind support to our publication and for purchasing a copy

More information

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MALAYSIA COURTS

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MALAYSIA COURTS (2006) 10 SYBIL 357 362 2006 Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MALAYSIA COURTS by AZMI SHAROM There were four noteworthy cases in the Malaysia Courts

More information

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA U.S. POLICIES TOWARD IRAN AND IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SECURITY IN THE PERSIAN GULF FROM

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA U.S. POLICIES TOWARD IRAN AND IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SECURITY IN THE PERSIAN GULF FROM UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA U.S. POLICIES TOWARD IRAN AND IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL SECURITY IN THE PERSIAN GULF FROM 1979 2008 SEYED MOHSEN MIRHOSSEINI FEM 2012 22 U.S. POLICIES TOWARD IRAN AND IMPLICATIONS

More information

156 INDUSTRIAL CO-ORDINATION ACT

156 INDUSTRIAL CO-ORDINATION ACT LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 156 INDUSTRIAL CO-ORDINATION ACT 1975 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION

More information

PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION

PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION PREVENTIVE DETENTION 1 LEE KEW SANG v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA AHMAD FAIRUZ, CJ; SITI NORMA YAAKOB, CJ (MALAYA); ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, FCJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-23-2004 (J) 2

More information

WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH (PINDAAN) 2018 RULES OF COURT (AMENDMENT) 2018

WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH (PINDAAN) 2018 RULES OF COURT (AMENDMENT) 2018 WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 7 Februari 2018 7 February 2018 P.U. (A) 24 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH (PINDAAN) 2018 RULES OF COURT (AMENDMENT) 2018 DISIARKAN OLEH/ PUBLISHED BY JABATAN

More information

549 STANDARDS OF MALAYSIA ACT

549 STANDARDS OF MALAYSIA ACT Standards of Malaysia 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 549 STANDARDS OF MALAYSIA ACT 1996 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE

More information

Amendments to Rules of Court 2012, Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, and Rules of the Federal Court 1995

Amendments to Rules of Court 2012, Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, and Rules of the Federal Court 1995 Circular No 067/2018 Dated 9 Mar 2018 To Members of the Malaysian Bar Amendments to Rules of Court 2012, Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, and Rules of the Federal Court 1995 Please be informed of the

More information

UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA

UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA Maktab Kerjasama (Perbadanan) (Pindaan) 1 UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA Akta A1398 akta MAKTAB KERJASAMA (PERBADANAN) (PINDAAN) 2011 2 Undang-Undang Malaysia Akta A1398 Tarikh Perkenan Diraja...... 5 Ogos 2011

More information

015e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, :41 AM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 15 SEDITION ACT Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

015e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, :41 AM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 15 SEDITION ACT Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 015e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 15 SEDITION ACT 1948 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA

More information

PENYERTAAN SOSIAL Social Participation

PENYERTAAN SOSIAL Social Participation Perarakan Hari Kebangsaan (National Day Parade) PENYERTAAN SOSIAL Social Participation Penyertaan sosial boleh meningkatkan kualiti hidup kerana ia mencerminkan komitmen dan kerelaan orang ramai untuk

More information

Notice of Annual General Meeting

Notice of Annual General Meeting Notice of Annual General Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Twelfth (12th) Annual General Meeting of the Company will be held at Ballroom Selangor 1, Sheraton Subang Hotel & Towers, Jalan SS 12/1,

More information

Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) (No. 2) 1 D.R. 17/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.

Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) (No. 2) 1 D.R. 17/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) (No. 2) 1 D.R. 17/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk

More information

PERKHIDMATAN UTAMA. Kod Dokumen: SOK/PIC/SS10 CHECKLIST FOR IKHTISAS APPLICATION PLEASE USE CAPITAL LETTERS. Name:

PERKHIDMATAN UTAMA. Kod Dokumen: SOK/PIC/SS10 CHECKLIST FOR IKHTISAS APPLICATION PLEASE USE CAPITAL LETTERS. Name: PERKHIDMATAN UTAMA PUTRA INTERNATIONAL (PUSAT ANTARABANGSA) UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Tel: 603-8946 6048 / 6198 E-mail: intl@upm.edu.my Kod Dokumen: SOK/PIC/SS10 CHECKLIST

More information

BETWEEN NIK ADIB BIN NIK MAT... APPELLANT AGAINST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT (ON SENTENCE)

BETWEEN NIK ADIB BIN NIK MAT... APPELLANT AGAINST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT (ON SENTENCE) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S(A)-39-7/16 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN [NO. SKB(A):61-11-09/16] BETWEEN NIK ADIB BIN NIK MAT...

More information

APPENDIX VIII FURTHER INFORMATION 1. DIRECTORS RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT Our Board has seen and approved the contents of this Circular and they collectively and individually accept full responsibility for

More information

REFERENCE TO THE SHARI AH ADVISORY COUNCIL IN ISLAMIC FINANCE : PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ON CIVIL COURT DECISIONS

REFERENCE TO THE SHARI AH ADVISORY COUNCIL IN ISLAMIC FINANCE : PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ON CIVIL COURT DECISIONS REFERENCE TO THE SHARI AH ADVISORY COUNCIL IN ISLAMIC FINANCE : PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ON CIVIL COURT DECISIONS Surianom Miskam surianom@kuis.edu.my Noor Aimi Mohamad Puad nooraimi@kuis.edu.my Nurauliani

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) GUAMAN SIVIL NO: D ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) GUAMAN SIVIL NO: D ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) GUAMAN SIVIL NO: D7-22-453-2005 ANTARA SOUTHERN FINANCE BERHAD. PLAINTIF (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai United

More information

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH & SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU CIVIL SUIT LEMBAGA PELABUHAN-PELABUHAN SABAH - DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH & SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU CIVIL SUIT LEMBAGA PELABUHAN-PELABUHAN SABAH - DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH & SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU CIVIL SUIT 22-271-2001 IAY & ASSOCIATES - PLAINTIFF V LEMBAGA PELABUHAN-PELABUHAN SABAH - DEFENDANT 15 IN OPEN COURT THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY

More information

PERATURAN-PERATURAN SKIM KEPENTINGAN 2017 INTEREST SCHEMES REGULATIONS 2017

PERATURAN-PERATURAN SKIM KEPENTINGAN 2017 INTEREST SCHEMES REGULATIONS 2017 WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 26 Januari 2017 26 January 2017 P.U. (A) 36 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERATURAN-PERATURAN SKIM KEPENTINGAN 2017 INTEREST SCHEMES REGULATIONS 2017 DISIARKAN OLEH/ PUBLISHED BY

More information

INCORPORATING THE UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL ON TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS IN THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK. Khairil Azmin bin Mokhtar Zuraini binti Ab Hamid

INCORPORATING THE UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL ON TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS IN THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK. Khairil Azmin bin Mokhtar Zuraini binti Ab Hamid 24 (2) 2016 IIUMLJ 377-395 INCORPORATING THE UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL ON TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS IN THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK Khairil Azmin bin Mokhtar Zuraini binti Ab Hamid ABSTRACT The international

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 02(i)-67-09/2012 (W) ANTARA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 02(i)-67-09/2012 (W) ANTARA DAN 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. 02(i)-67-09/2012 (W) ANTARA AV ASIA SDN BHD Perayu DAN MEASAT BROADCAST NETWORK SYSTEMS SDN BHD Responden (Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan

More information

CIVIL PROCEDURE SUMMARY 2011

CIVIL PROCEDURE SUMMARY 2011 CIVIL PROCEDURE SUMMARY 2011 LAWSKOOL SINGAPORE Contents Chapter 1: Obtaining jurisdiction and service of Writ...6 A. Jurisdiction to Try Proceedings...6 B. Modes of Commencement...6 Writ...6 Originating

More information

CHEMICAL COMPANY OF MALAYSIA BERHAD (5136-T)

CHEMICAL COMPANY OF MALAYSIA BERHAD (5136-T) CHEMICAL COMPANY OF MALAYSIA BERHAD (5136-T) (Incorporated in Malaysia) SUMMARY OF THE 55 th ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD AT JUNIOR BALLROOM, INTERCONTINENTAL KUALA LUMPUR, 165 JALAN AMPANG, 50450 KUALA

More information

AHMAD SHAHRIR NAZI v. NASHRUL HAZIMIE AB HALIM & ORS

AHMAD SHAHRIR NAZI v. NASHRUL HAZIMIE AB HALIM & ORS Ahmad Shahrir Nazi 221 AHMAD SHAHRIR NAZI v. NASHRUL HAZIMIE AB HALIM & ORS High Court Malaya, Shah Alam Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh JC [Suit No: 22NCVC-476-09-2015] 5 April 2016 Civil Procedure: Judgments

More information