INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018

Save this PDF as:
Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018"

Transcription

1 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018 Before Venue : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ - CHAIRMAN : Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur. Date of reference : 6 September 2012 Dates of mention Dates of Hearing Claimant s Written Submission : : : 6 November 2012, 4 December 2012, 8 January 2013, 7 February March 2013, 10 April 2013, 2 May 2013, 3 June 2013, 8 April 2014, 5 February 2015, 14 May 2015, 9 June 2015, 2 June 2016 and 10 June July 2017 and 25 July November 2017 Company s Written Submission : 26 September 2017 Representation : Encik V. Kanagaratnam Malaysian Airline System Employee s Union (MASEU) (Representative for the Claimant) Cik Jamice Anne Leo Selvanathan with Encik Arjun Chandra Kumar (PDK) Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok (Learned Counsel for the Company) 1

2 AWARD The reference of the Honourable Minister of Human Resources is regarding the dismissal of Shanmugam A/L Supramaniam (hereafter referred to as the Claimant ) by Malaysia Airlines System Berhad (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) on 26 August The reference was dated 6 September 2012 and received by the Court on 13 September Background Facts The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 14 November 1991 as a Traffic Hand. The Claimant s last position was Traffic Hand and his last drawn basic salary was RM1, and also entitled to Uniform Laundry Allowance of RM60.00 and Shift Allowance of RM On 13 May 2011, the Claimant was stopped and searched by the Malaysia Airport Berhad s ( MAB ) security personnel at the Staff Entrance of the Penang International Airport as he was carrying pieces of cardboard boxes and plastic sheets ( the said items ) out of the airside area. The attending security personnel logged evidence of the said items by taking photographs of the same. They further confiscated the Claimant s airport pass and immediately drew up an Incident Report which was submitted to their superior. In the Incident Report, the Security Personnel stated as follows: Pada jam lebih kurang 04.50hrs saya Sjn PB 7041 Mohamad Sapri dan Konst. PB 7099 Mohd Taufiq membuat pemeriksaan mengejut di Staf Entrance bersama anggota Operasi Konst. Hazwahadini telah menahan seorang kakitangan MAS Trafik Hand di laluan kakitangan aras 2 kerana membawa keluar kotak dan plastik 2

3 daripada kawasan airside. Beliau dibawa ke bilik Task Force bersama barang bukti untuk disoaljawab. Setelah disoaljawab didapati beliau juga tidak mempunyai borang pengisytiharan barang. Tindakan anggota Task Force menahan Pas KSE (Tetap) selama 02 minggu dan barang bukti ditahan untuk tindakan seterusnya. Untuk makluman pihak Tuan ini adalah kesalahan kali kelima pelbagai kesalahan dilakukan sejak tahun 2008, dua daripadanya adalah kes seperti di atas. Sekian laporan saya untuk tindakan Tuan selanjutnya. Nama : Shanmugam A/L Subramaniam No. K/P : Majikan : MAS (Trafik Hand) Pas Tamat : AUG Following this, on 19 May 2011, MAB s Security Department issued a letter to the Company s Station Manager at Penang International Airport informing him of the incident on 13 May 2011 involving the Claimant and further states as follows: 3. Untuk makluman pihak tuan, ini adalah kesalahan kelima pelbagai kesalahan dilakukan oleh beliau sejak tahun 2008 dan dua daripadanya adalah kes seperti di atas. Ini adalah merupakan kesalahan yang serius yang telah dilakukan oleh penama di mana beliau seringkali tidak mematuhi prosedur keselamatan lapangan terbang. Pas keselamatan beliau telah ditahan dan beliau tidak dibenarkan mengambil sebarang pas keselamatan selama dua minggu berkuatkuasa mulai daripada 19 Mei 2011 (sehingga selesai siasatan dijalankan terhadap beliau). On 30 May 2011, the Company issued a letter to the Claimant suspending him for fourteen (14) days with full pay pending investigations. On 23 June 2011, the Claimant was issued a Notice to Show Cause in which two allegations of misconduct were levelled against him as follows: 3

4 Tuduhan 1 Bahawa anda sebagai Pekerja Trafik, di Jabatan Operasi Lapangan Terbang yang berpengkalan di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Bayan Lepas Pulau Pinang, pada 22hb Mac 2011 lebih kurang antara jam 1500 petang hingga 1600 petang dan pada 13hb Mei 2011 lebih kurang jam 0650 pagi, didapati telah mengambil dan menyimpan harta syarikat tanpa kebenaran iaitu bungkusan plastik dan kotak-kotak terpakai dengan membawa keluar melalui Laluan Kakitangan Aras 2 tanpa kebenaran. Anda dengan ini telah melakukan satu perbuatan salahlaku yang bertentangan dengan syarat-syarat perkhidmatan anda dengan syarikat seperti yang tercatat di bawah Fasa 16, Perenggan 16.1 di dalam Lampiran A. Acara Tatatertib Penerbangan Malaysia, jika sabit kesalahan anda boleh dikenakan hukuman yang berat. Tuduhan 2 Bahawa anda sebagai Pekerja Trafik, di Jabatan Operasi Lapangan Terbang yang berpengkalan di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Bayan Lepas Pulau Pinang telah didapati melanggar dan engkar arahan yang telah dikeluarkan sebelum ini supaya tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang anda telah lakukan tetapi anda masih berdegil dan terus mengulangi melakukannya walaupun telah diberi surat amaran, kaunseling dan juga telah dihukum melalui penahanan sementara pas tetap selama dua (2) bulan oleh pihak keselamatan Malaysia Airport Sendirian Berhad. Anda dengan ini telah melakukan satu perbuatan salahlaku yang bertentangan dengan syarat-syarat perkhidmatan anda dengan syarikat seperti yang tercatat di bawah Fasa 11, Perenggan 11.1 di dalam Lampiran A. Acara Tatatertib Penerbangan Malaysia, jika sabit kesalahan anda boleh dikenakan hukuman yang berat. The Claimant replied to the Notice to Show Cause on 4 July 2011 and stated among others as follows; (i) He admitted to removing the cardboard boxes and plastic sheets from the airside area; (ii) That he did not know that the removal of the cardboard boxes and plastic sheets were an offence/misconduct; (iii) If it was in fact an offence/misconduct, he apologise for his actions; and 4

5 (iv) The cardboard boxes and plastic sheets were found in the rubbish bins. The Company found the Claimant s explanation to the charges to be untenable. In this regard and in consideration of all the surrounding circumstances, the Company dismissed the Claimant by Notice of Termination dated 26 August 2011 with immediate effect. The Claimant appealed by way of letter dated 7 September 2011 against the Company s decision to dismiss him. However the Company, upon consideration of the appeal rejected the same. The Law The function of the Industrial Court in a reference under s.20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 has been clearly stated by the Federal Court in the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v J & P Coats (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1981] 1 LNS 30; [1981] 2 MLJ 129 where His Lordship Raja Azlan Shah, CJ (Malaya) stated at p. 136: Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for inquiry, it is the duty of that Court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him the duty of the Industrial Court will be to inquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper inquiry of the Court is the reason advanced by it and that Court or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find one for it. 5

6 In the case of Wong Yuen Hock v Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn. Bhd. & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344 at p. 352 Mohd Azmi FCJ delivering the grounds of judgment of the Court had this to say: On the authorities, we were of the view that the main and only function of the Industrial Court in dealing with a reference under section 20 of the Act (unless otherwise lawfully provided by the terms of reference) is to determine whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by the management as the grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman, and if so, whether such grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal. In our opinion, there was no jurisdiction by the Industrial Court to change the scope of reference by substituting its own reason. Burden and Standard of Proof The burden of proving misconduct that justifies dismissal lies on the employer who has to establish such misconduct to the standard of a balance of probabilities. In Century Mahkota Hotel Melaka & Anor v. Michele Geraldine Kensler [1999] 3 ILR 60, the Industrial Court stated: "It is settled law that in cases of direct dismissal such as this, the burden is always on the employer to satisfy the Court by way of cogent and convincing evidence, albeit on a balance of probabilities that such misconduct as are alleged have indeed been committed by the employee and if so, whether it deserves a dismissal." 6

7 In Ireka Construction Berhad v. Chantiravathan Subramaniam James [1995] 2 ILR 11, it was stated that: "It is a basic principle of industrial jurisprudence that in a dismissal case, the employer must produce convincing evidence that the workman committed that offence of which the workman is alleged to have been dismissed. The burden of proof is on the employer to prove that he has just cause or excuse for taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of dismissal upon the employee. The just cause must be, either a misconduct, negligence or poor performance based on the case. Evaluation and Findings The primary allegation against the Claimant is the unauthorised removal of cardboard boxes and plastic sheets from the airside area of the Penang International Airport. From the following evidence, it is obvious that the Claimant admitted to the said removal from the airside area, namely, (i) In his Witness Statement the Claimant states as follows: 4. S. Merujuk kepada surat tuduhan bertarikh 23hb. Jun 2011, adakah anda tahu bahawa bungkusan plastik dan kotak-kotak terpakai yang anda membawa keluar adalah satu kesalahan? J. Tidak. 5. S. Di manakah anda jumpa barang-barang tersebut? J. Saya jumpa barang-barang tersebut di tong sampah dan di merata-rata tempat. 7

8 (ii) Statement in Investigation dated 30 May 2011: J1. Sewaktu dalam perjalanan memasuki pejabat Ramp, saya telah terlihat beberapa keping kotak lama yang diletakkan berhampiran locker kakitangan. Saya telah mengambil kotak tersebut, lalu telah menyusun serta mengikatnya dan telah meletakkannya berhampiran locker kakitangan di hadapan pejabat Ramp kemudian saya telah pergi ke trolly bagasi untuk mengutip plastik buruk. Setelah saya mengambil plastik yang tersebut, saya telah mengikatnya lalu membawanya keluar bersama-sama dengan kotak buruk yang telah saya ikat tadi melalui laluan kakitangan. S10. Di manakah anda telah mengambil kotak dan plastik yang tersebut? Kotak telah saya jumpai berhampiran locker kakitangan Traffic MAS manakala plastik telah saya pungut dari trolly MAS. S.11. Apakah tujuan anda mengambil kotak dan plastik yang tersebut? Kotak dan plastik yang dibuang itu diambil untuk dijual. S12. Dimanakah anda menjual kotak dan plastik yang tersebut? Di mana-mana kedai berhampiran Bayan Lepas. S13. Adakah anda meminta kebenaran dari pihak atasan MAS untuk mengambil plastik yang tersebut bagi tujuan untuk dijual? Tiada. S16. Adakah anda mengakui bahawa gambar lelaki yang sedang membawa satu bungkusan plastik melalui laluan kakitangan di aras dua LTAB Pulau Pinang pada 22hb Mac 2011, pada jam lebih kurang 1527hrs sepertimana yang 8

9 tercatat di gambar tersebut adalah gambar anda? Ya, gambar lelaki tersebut adalah saya. S17. Apakah tujuan anda membawa plastik yang tersebut keluar? Untuk dijual bagi menyara hidup. S18. Di manakah anda mengambil plastik yang tersebut? Dekat trolly bagasi MAS. S19. Adakah anda meminta kebenaran dari pihak atasan MAS untuk mengambil plastik yang tersebut bagi tujuan untuk dijual? Tiada. S20. Adakah anda mengakui bahawa pada 21hb Mac 2008, pihak Keselamatan MAB telah menahan anda sewaktu anda hendak membawa keluar plastik penutup bagasi melalui Pos Kawalan Keselamatan MAB Gate 03? Tidak pasti tetapi biasa mereka tahan saya di situ kerana membawa plastik buruk keluar. (iii) The Claimant admitted that the person in the CCTV images seen carrying cardboard boxes and plastic sheets was him. (iv) In cross-examination during the trial of this matter the Claimant states as follows: Tengok bundle hijau, mukasurat 20, COB1, En. Shanmugam diberi show cause kerana pada mereka nampak Encik Shanmugam keluarkan plastik, tengok MS21, ini jawapan Encik Shanmugam ya, Encik Shanmugam sendiri tulis surat ini, saya tidak tahu barang yang saya keluarkan.. 9

10 Jumpa dalam tong sampah Encik Shanmugam mengaku memang keluarkan plastik betul? Ya. Tapi saya nak tahu, tadi mukasurat 48, SMG sudah diberitahu, tengok muka surat 21 kata saya tak tahu ini serious offence. Kenapa 3 tahun buat lagi? Saya tahu kesalahan tapi saya kutip sebab orang lain kutip. Di mukasurat 30 COB-1, sini Encik kata plastik dan kotak lama itu dibuang di tempat tong sampah. Sebenarnya plastik dan kotak lama itu ditempat locker dan troli, bukan tong sampahkan? Dua-dua tempat saya kutip. Kenapa masa sekuriti tanya soalan dalam siasatan lain dan jawapan dalam show cause lain? Ada sikit campur. As a consequence of the above, the Claimant s airport security pass was detained for two weeks. The Company s Witness, Muhammad Fauzi bin Mahayuddin ( COW-2 ) who was the Senior Manager, Industrial Relation, Business Integrity Department, testified that MAB is the Malaysian Airport Company that manages most of the airports in Malaysia. This includes the management and upkeep of airport facilities as well as airport security. The Company is an airline operator and rents the usage of the airport facilities from MAB. Although the Company has its own security divisions which is responsible for its own flight operations, MAB is responsible for security of the entire airport area in Malaysia. The conduct of the Claimant had caused disrepute to the Company. 10

11 Shahiza bt Mohamad Sariff ( COW-1 ), the Company s former Head of Human Capital (Northern Region) testified that airside area is the security areas accessible to aircraft, including runways, taxiways and apron/ramps. She further stressed that the removal of boxes and plastic sheets from the airside area is deemed to be an offence. The plastic sheets and boxes are used when the baggage are transported to the aircraft for loading or when it is being unloaded. These are property belonging to the Company and are usually handed over to MAS Cargo for disposal. COW-1 further reiterated that the said item was the property of the Company as follows:- You said these are property are handed over for disposal. Any instructions of this sort that it should be given for disposal? Or is it your understanding or what? To my understanding those are company s items and it is not allowed to be carried out from office premises by unauthorised personnel. But earlier you said this is not company property. Can you confirm that these are company s items? Yes. Any proof to show it? Those items are in the companies premises by default it is company s belongings. Q ; You were asked about the boxes and sheets and if there was MAS logo on it, explain why you say it was not necessary to check if the logo was on the box? Regardless, whether the Company logo is on the box or not, it is still the company s belongings. 11

12 On 23 August 1999, the Company issued a Circular to all staff reminding them that the unauthorised removal of property of the Company is a serious misconduct and may result in dismissal. The Disciplinary Procedure of the Company under Appendix A also provides that the removals of Company property are acts of misconduct. Clause 16 of the Disciplinary Procedure states as follows: Without prejudice to the generality of the term misconduct it shall be deemed to include the following:- 16. Removal of Company Property Removing without proper authority Company property or property entrusted to the Company from the aircraft or company premises. The Claimant confirmed in cross-examination that he was aware of the policies and procedures of the Company and the consequences of failing to comply with the same as follows:- Encik Shanmugam lihat di sini, mukasurat 5 ikatan warna hijau, di perenggan 4 ia berkata bahawa tuan akan tertakluk kepada peraturan-peraturan pekeliling dan arahan-arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Syarikat dari masa ke semasa. Syarikat akan mengambil tindakan tatatertib terhadap tuan/puan sekiranya didapati melanggar peraturan serta arahan tersebut. Tuan/puan dikehendaki mengambil tahu akan Peraturan Tatatertib Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad. Sekiranya tuan/puan ingin menyemak peraturan tersebut, sila berhubung dengan Ketua Jabatan tuan/puan. Encik Shanmugam faham dan setuju? Ya. 12

13 Encik Shanmugam faham? Dia kata peraturan-peraturan pekeliling, arahan-arahan dan syarat-syarat dari Syarikat mesti ikutkan? Ya, betul. Kalau tidak ikut, syarikat akan ambil tindakan tatatertibkan? Ya, betul. Encik Shanmugam, tengok ms13, ini adalah, tengok ms15, itu tanda tangan Encik Shanmugam? Ya. Encik Shanmugam tengok mukasurat 13, nombor 4, dia kata mencuri, menipu atau tidak jujur adalah satu salahlaku kan? Ya. Encik Shanmugam tengok nombor 31, dia kata jika membawa keluar harta benda syarikat ia adalah satu salahlaku? Setuju? Betul. Mukasurat 5 dokumen sama ini, tengok soalan 23, masa itu Encik Shanmugam tahu kalau ambik barang tanpa kebenaran ia adalah salah? Tahukan? Ya, tahu. Based on the above evidence, the claimant was aware of the policies and procedures of the Company. However, the Claimant deliberately and indignantly failed to comply with the same. In the case of Ahmad Aziz Othman v Felda Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd. [2014] 1 ILR 382, upheld the dismissal of the employee in view of breaches of company policies in the following terms:- 13

14 [39] The claimant conceded in cross-examination that he signed the Visitor Gate Passes on 7 February 2007 and 10 June 2008 as COW4 was on leave and it is the procedure according to the company s Prosedur Memasuki Pintu Utama.. Clearly, the claimant was in breach of the company s Standard Operating Procedure and prudent practice when the claimant instructed the Auxiliary Police Officers not to issue the Visitor Gate Pass to the lorry in question. The claimant owed a duty of trust and confidence in the performance of his duty as an Assistant Manager but in the circumstances and factual matrix of this case, the claimant had breached such duty. The court is inclined to agree with the submissions of the company that the claimant had failed to exercise the responsibilities and accountabilities expected of an employee in his position. It is clear from the evidence that the claimant had chosen to blatantly ignore the standard procedures and guidelines that had been placed to safeguard the company and its interest. [emphasis added] Zulkifli Abdul Latif v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad [2006] 3 ILR 1923, the Industrial Court affirmed the dismissal of employee on the grounds of his noncompliance with the relevant company procedures. The following was the relevant finding of the Court: [42] In the court s view none of the above mentioned reasons stated by the Claimant form part of the said Procedures. Based on the evidence of the claimant, I am of the view that none of the emotional and superficial reasons stated by the claimant are satisfactory to exculpate himself from not complying with the mandatory requirements of the said Procedures. I am of the firm view that the said Procedures are in existence to be complied with as the claimant knew, should or must have known or ought to have known them. The Court in the Zulkifli Abdul Latif (supra) case further state as follows in respect of an employee s deemed knowledge of the Company s policies and procedures:- 14

15 [28] In the court s view even if there was uncertainty as whether CO14 was in fact placed on the said Notice Board the important question to be determined is whether the claimant having been so many years in the company (for about 13 years) knew, should or must have known or ought to have known regarding the said procedures for purchasing rebated tickets by his conduct. This fact cannot be ignored. I am of the view that having read the evidence of the witnesses in the notes of proceedings the claimant knew or should know or must have known or ought to have known regarding the said Procedures. [Emphasis added] Accordingly, the Claimant must be deemed to have had the requisite knowledge of the applicable rules, provisions and procedures of the Company. The Claimant stated in cross-examination that he was not aware of the Circular dated 23 August Despite his purported lack of knowledge, the Claimant was verbally warned, on numerous occasions by the MAB Security Department, and issued a written warning by the Company on 20 June 2008, not to remove property belonging to the Company without authorisation. The Company had on 28 March 2008 issued a show cause letter to the Claimant as follows; Dear Encik Shanmugam, SHOW CAUSE LETTER ATTEMPT TO REMOVE AIRCRAFT BAGGAGE PLASTIC SHEET FROM SECURITY POST GATE 3 We received a letter from Head Security Unit, Malaysia Airports Sdn. Bhd. (MASB) ref(18) MASB.PP/9/02.1 Jld. 8 dated 27 March 2008 who mentioned that:- 1. On 21 March 2008, MASB Task Force stopped you from attempting to remove aircraft baggage plastic sheet from Security Post Gate You have tried to bring these aircraft baggage plastic sheets out through the staff entrance at the terminal building before this incident and have been given a warning by their Security Personnel not to do it. 15

16 3. As a result of the incident on 21 March 2008, your MASB Airport Pass has been confiscated pending investigation into this case. Kindly submit a written explanation to me within 3 days on receipt of this letter the reason for your act of misconduct and why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Thank you. Yours sincerely - Signed - Zulkifli bin Mohamed STATION MANAGER PENANG. The Claimant replied to the show cause letter on 10 April 2008 as follows: 10 th April 2008 Station Manager Mr. Zulkifli bin Mohamed PENANG AIRPORT (SHANMUGAM s/o SUPRAMANIAM) (S/No: ) Saya Shanmugam s/o Supramaniam ingin menyatakan perkara tersebut mengambil plastic berkenaan adalah dari trolley dan di tempat buangan. Saya mengutip untuk menampung perbelanjaan anak-anak saya. Diminta Encik Zulkifli bin Mohamed pertimbangkan perkara tersebut. Diberitahu Bukan saya saja yang mengutip ramai MAB staff yang mengutip plastic dan lain-lain lagi. The Company on receipt of the Claimant s letter issued a warning letter dated 20 June 2008 as follows: Dear Encik Shanmugam, SHOW CAUSE LETTER ATTEMPT TO REMOVE AIRCRAFT BAGGAGE PLASTIC SHEET FROM SECURITY POST GATE 3 We acknowledge receipt of your letter of explanation dated 10 April 2008 on the above-mentioned subject in reply to our letter ref PENKD 061 PF dated 28 March A thorough investigation was conducted by Security Department into your case taking into consideration your past records as well. This serves as a warning to you not to repeat a similar offence in future otherwise appropriate action will be taken against you. As such, even if he was not aware of the specific Circular dated 23 August 1999, he was aware that he was not permitted to remove properties belonging to the Company. 16

17 In amplification, the Claimant admitted that he was warned not to remove property belonging to the Company but he failed to heed to the same. The Claimant s representative raised the issue that the said items were merely disposable boxes and plastics sheets which are of no material importance to the Company. COW-2 testified that even though the said items are disposable items, it cannot be removed without due authorisation. The value of the said items is not material but the action committed by the Claimant has somewhat effected the Company s image because the Company received the report from MAB who is a third party and managing the airport security and affairs. The Claimant was wearing the Company s uniform with logo while carrying the said item from the airside area. The Claimant was also stopped and warned by the MAB Security Department on many occasion but still continued to do the same. In Ros Sazilla Rashid & Anor v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd. [2013] 1 ILR 490 the two employees were the stewardess and steward of the Company respectively. They were dismissed for having found in possession 3 bottles of Dom Perignon Vintage 1996 which were reported missing from the bar cart of the first class cabin of a MAS aircraft returning from London. It was held that:- [22] The Court makes reference to the case of K A Sanduran Nehru Ratnam v. I-Berhad [2007] 1 CLJ 347, where the Court of Appeal held that the correct approach that the court must take in the adjudication of the issues of this nature before it is not the condition or the type of the material that was taken out, but the taking out without authorisation. This should be the relevant consideration. The value of the material taken out would be immaterial. What is material is that the material was the company s property and the claimant was not authorised to take it out of the company s premises. [Emphasis Added] 17

18 Therefore, there is no basis in the Claimant s contention that the said items taken out by the Claimant are of no material importance to the Company. The value of the plastic sheets and boxes are immaterial here. What is imperative is the fact that the Claimant removed the said item from the Company s premises without any authority. In the circumstances, the Company has proved the charges on balance of probabilities and that it had terminated the Claimant s employment with just cause and excuse. Is the Dismissal Justified? The Company, in view of the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the Claimant, decided that dismissal was the most appropriate punishment. The Company s Senior Manager, Industrial Relations, Business Integrity Department, Encik Muhammad Fauzi bin Mahayuddin ( COW-2 ) explained the reasons as follows:- Q.14 : Please tell the Court why the Company dismissed the Claimant. The Claimant s act of removing Company property from the Company premises is a very serious misconduct. The Claimant was fully aware that his actions were serious misconducts as he had been previously cautioned for similar incidences. Further, the Claimant had agreed to abide by all disciplinary rules and regulations imposed by the Company when he signed his contract of employment in 1991 (see pp. 4-15), COB). The Company s strict policy on unauthorized removal of the property of the Company was reiterated to the Claimant by way of a Circular dated (see p.16-9, COB). This Circular emphasizes that the unauthorized removal of property and possession of property is a serious misconduct and the disciplinary punishment imposed, if found guilty, would include 18

19 dismissal. This Circular also reminds employees of the Company that they will be liable to security checks by the police, Department of Civil Aviation or MAS Security (see paragraph 3, p.17, COB). It was during this security checks that the Claimant was found to be in possession of the plastic sheets and cardboard boxes (see pp , COB). In the circumstances, the Claimant had been found to have committed an act of misconduct when he breached the rules and regulations imposed by the Company (see para 16.1 and 11.1 Appendix A (Acts of Misconduct) of the Company s Disciplinary Procedure at pp. 23 and 25, COB-2). The Claimant s collective actions of repeatedly committing the same offence despite prior cautions and further denying knowledge that his actions were in breach of the Company s policy are indicative of his intention to continue to disregard Company policy. Given the circumstances, and as the Claimant had been previously warned, the Company viewed this case very seriously and exercised its managerial prerogative to terminate the services of the Claimant. [Emphasis Added] In Roslan Mohamed Noor v Malaysian Airlines System Berhad [2013] 2 LNS 0419, the employee was found to be in possession of the passenger oxygen mask and breathing oxygen system component which belonged to the Company and the items were meant to be the aircraft s emergency equipment for breathing purposes. The Claimant alleged that he took the items from the rubbish bin in front of his office but the Industrial Court held that it did not entitle him to take it without the permission of the Company. The Company issued a Circular to all staff on 19 th December, 2006 vide SGMHR 192/06 that unauthorized possession of Company s property by staff during the course of their daily activities would be considered as serious misconduct. In affirming the dismissal of the employee, the Industrial Court held as follows:- 19

20 As regards the punishment, it has been submitted that the claimant was a long standing employee of 17 years and that his misconduct did not cause severe financial loss to the company. The fact that the said parts were of nominal value is irrelevant [see K.A. Sanduran Nehru Ratnam supra]. Punishment is a management prerogative and the court cannot imposed its view on the employer, so long as the employer had acted reasonably. [see British Leyland [UK] Ltd. V. Swift [1981] ICR 524] which was approved by the Federal Court in Ng Hock Cheng v Pengarah Penjara & Ors [1998] 1 CLJ 405. In the instant case, the company had made it clear that employees within the KLIA area were liable to security checks and they must ensure that they were not in possession inter alia of any items used by the company or items similar to those used by other airlines. The Claimant in spite of having worked for 17 years with the company yet did not heed the company s warning. In the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal is certainly warranted. [Emphasis Added] In K.A. Sanduran Nehru a/l Ratnam v I-Berhad [2007] 2 MLJ 430, the employee was dismissed for the removal of 1.5 litre of thinner belonging to the employer. The Industrial Court concluded that as the loss suffered by the employer was minimal, the dismissal was not reasonable or justified. On judicial review to the High Court, the High Court remitted the matter for readjudication before a different Chairman. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found as follows: [26] We are of the view that the learned judge adopted the correct approach when he said that what matters is not type off thinner that was taken out, but the taking out of 1.5 litre of thinner without authorization. It is not disputed that the thinner was taken out without authorization. We are also of the view that the learned judge was right when he found that the Industrial Court had committed an error in law in finding that the thinner that was taken by the appellant was not the thinner that was used for the mixing of paint and that it was unwanted thinner. The evidence clearly showed that the thinner used for mixing paint in the store was the same thinner that was given upon request for cleaning the spray gun and the worker s hands. In relation to this, we noticed that the learned Chairman had also taken into account an irrelevant consideration in arriving at the decision that she 20

21 made, namely, that the respondent only suffered a loss which is minimal as it involved only 1.5 litre of thinner. We are of the view that the value of the thinner which was taken out of the factory by the appellant is immaterial. What is material is that the thinner was the respondent s property and the appellant was not authorized to take it out of the respondent s premises. [Emphasis Added] Conclusion For reasons adumbrated and having regards to the evidence in its totality, the Court is of the considered view that the Company has proved on a balance of probability that the Claimant's termination was reasonable and justified. Based on equity and good conscience and the substantial merit of the case without regard to technicality and legal form, the Court find that the Claimant's termination was carried out with just cause or excuse. The claim is hereby dismissed. HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 12 APRIL 2018 tt (GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ ) CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA AT KUALA LUMPUR 21

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 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

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

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue:

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

Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA

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:

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

Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA

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

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018 BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN JAMHIRAH ALI CHAIRMAN VENUE : Industrial

More information

UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

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

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

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

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

EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM ABX CORPORATION SDN BHD ( V) & UTS GROUP OF COMPANIES

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

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

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(12)/4-584/14 BETWEEN RADZI BIN MD. TAP AND FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES PLANTATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 1148 OF 2018

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(12)/4-584/14 BETWEEN RADZI BIN MD. TAP AND FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES PLANTATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 1148 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(12)/4-584/14 BETWEEN RADZI BIN MD. TAP AND FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES PLANTATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 1148 OF 2018 Before Venue : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD AWARD NO. 552 OF 2018 Before : Y.A. PUAN ROSENANI BINTI ABD RAHMAN - Chairman

More information

(RD/T&C/SDB/ENG/JUN2016) Page 1 of 5

(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

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

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

BETWEEN KAMARUSHAM BIN ZAKARIA... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence)

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

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

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

March IR Law Free Newsletter. IR Law provides the following advisory/consultation services to Members and Non-Members*: Disciplinary proceedings

March IR Law Free Newsletter. IR Law provides the following advisory/consultation services to Members and Non-Members*: Disciplinary proceedings IRLaw CORPORATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONSULTANCY Dear Readers, This is our Free Newsletter, examining some updates on the new Public Holiday for Sarawak, Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and our usual

More information

KONTRAK Diputuskan: [1] [2] [3] [4]

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]

More information

MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT

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

More information

P Mukundan A/L P K Kunchu Kurup and 2 Others v Daniel A/L Anthony and Another Appeal

P Mukundan A/L P K Kunchu Kurup and 2 Others v Daniel A/L Anthony and Another Appeal IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, JCA; Nallini Pathmanathan, JCA; Suraya Othman, JCA P Mukundan A/L P K Kunchu Kurup and 2 Others v Daniel A/L Anthony and Another Appeal

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009 Before Venue : AHMAD TERRIRUDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH CHAIRMAN

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

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 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

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

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

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

HBT 103 BAHASA, UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN I

HBT 103 BAHASA, UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN I UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2006/2007 Oktober/November 2006 HBT 103 BAHASA, UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN I Masa : 3 jam Sila pastikan bahawa kertas peperiksaan

More information

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2000/2001

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2000/2001 Angka Giliran... No. Tempat Duduk... UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2000/2001 September 2000 HBT203/3 - BAHASA, UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN II (Language, Law

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : MT-42S-10-07/2016 ANTARA

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : MT-42S-10-07/2016 ANTARA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : MT-42S-10-07/2016 ANTARA 1. SYED MOHAMMAD YASER BIN SYED SOPIAN 2. SHAIFUL FAREZZUAN BIN RAMLI - PERAYU-PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA -

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

D.R. 18/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut:

D.R. 18/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Kanun Keseksaan (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 18/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan

More information

HBT Bahasa, Undang-Undang Dan Penterjemahan II (Language, Law and Translation II)

HBT Bahasa, Undang-Undang Dan Penterjemahan II (Language, Law and Translation II) UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2001/2002 September 2001 HBT 203 - Bahasa, Undang-Undang Dan Penterjemahan II (Language, Law and Translation II) Masa : 2½ jam Sila

More information

DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR ROSE HANIDA BINTI LONG LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PENGHAKIMAN

DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR ROSE HANIDA BINTI LONG LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PENGHAKIMAN 1 DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42K (115 124)-09/2016 ROSE HANIDA BINTI LONG LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PENGHAKIMAN Latarbelakang 1.

More information

HBT 203 Bahasa, Undang-Undang dan Penterjemahan II

HBT 203 Bahasa, Undang-Undang dan Penterjemahan II No. Tempat Duduk UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Kedua Sidang Akademik 2003/2004 Februari/Mac 2004 HBT 203 Bahasa, Undang-Undang dan Penterjemahan II Masa : 3 jam ARAHAN KEPADA CALON: 1.

More information

CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE HIRING OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES

CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE HIRING OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE HIRING OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES In these conditions, the expression Box means the Safe Deposit Box agreed to be hired by the Hirer and the expression Hirer includes any persons authorised

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial

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

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

Datuk Wira SM Faisal bin SM Nasimuddin Kamal lwn Datin Wira Emilia binti Hanafi & 4 lagi

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

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

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

2. The following group of persons shall not be eligible to participate in this Contest:

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

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

Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA

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

More information

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

Public Prosecutor v Pham Ti Tuyet Mai

Public Prosecutor v Pham Ti Tuyet Mai IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohd Zawawi Salleh, JCA; Idrus Harun, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Public Prosecutor v Pham Ti Tuyet Mai Citation: [2018] MYCA 62 Suit Number: Criminal Appeal No.

More information

Majlis Perbandaran Seremban v Era Baru Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal

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

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

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

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND AMINUDIN BIN MUSA (I/C. NO: 760521-03-5519) GROUNDS

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017 Before : Y.A. PUAN REIHANA BTE ABD.RAZAK CHAIRMAN (SITTING ALONE)

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

PROGRAM PERTUKARAN PELAJAR DAN JARINGAN PENDIDIKAN ANTARABANGSA 2016

PROGRAM PERTUKARAN PELAJAR DAN JARINGAN PENDIDIKAN ANTARABANGSA 2016 PROGRAM PERTUKARAN PELAJAR DAN JARINGAN PENDIDIKAN ANTARABANGSA 2016 Sila Tanda Program yang anda ingin sertai; Program Ke Jepun Siri ( ) Program Ke Korea Siri ( ) London Siri ( ) Australia Siri ( ) Europe

More information

PROPOSED DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J /2014 & J /2010 BETWEEN AND

PROPOSED DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J /2014 & J /2010 BETWEEN AND PROPOSED DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J-05-290-10/2014 & J-05-303-10/2010 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND YAP KIM WANG RESPONDENT [In the

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

Mengikut plaintif, pengubahsuaian bangunan itu telah dimulakan tanpa kebenaran plaintif terlebih dahulu.

Mengikut plaintif, pengubahsuaian bangunan itu telah dimulakan tanpa kebenaran plaintif terlebih dahulu. 1 PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN TAMAN BUKIT JAMBUL lwn. PERBADANAN PEMBANGUNAN BANDAR & LAIN LAGI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 21-1-1996 24 SEPTEMBER 1996 [1997]

More information

AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018

AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : BETWEEN NAZREEN BEGUM BINTI MOHAMED YAACOB AND PETRONAS / PETRONAS CHEMICALS GROUP BERHAD AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018 Before Venue : PUAN ANNA NG FUI CHOO - Chairman

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

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P-01-61-1999 ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN 1. INSPEKTOR ABDUL FATAH B. ABDUL RAHMAN RESPONDEN- 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

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

D.R. 40/95 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tanah Negara.

D.R. 40/95 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tanah Negara. D.R. 40/95 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tanah Negara. [ ] BAHAWASANYA adalah suaimanfaat hanya bagi maksud memastikan keseragaman undang-undang

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

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE 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

More information

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Peperiksaan Semester Kedua Sidang Akademik April 2008 HBT 203. BAHASA, UNDANG.UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN II

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Peperiksaan Semester Kedua Sidang Akademik April 2008 HBT 203. BAHASA, UNDANG.UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN II UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Kedua Sidang Akademik 2007 12008 April 2008 HBT 203. BAHASA, UNDANG.UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN II Masa : 3 jam Sila pastikan bahawa kertas peperiksaan ini mengandungi

More information

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 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)

More information

Statutory Declarations 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 783 STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT (Revised 2016)

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

More information

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. 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

More information

1.0 KONSEP 2.0 MAKLUMAT KOMODITI. Seperti di Perkara 7 Jadual Pertama 3.0 BELIAN DAN JUALAN 3.1 HARGA BELIAN KOMODITI BANK

1.0 KONSEP 2.0 MAKLUMAT KOMODITI. Seperti di Perkara 7 Jadual Pertama 3.0 BELIAN DAN JUALAN 3.1 HARGA BELIAN KOMODITI BANK Sukacita dimaklumkan bahawa Bank Rakyat ( Bank ) telah bersetuju meluluskan permohonan kemudahan Pembiayaan Peribadi-i seperti yang tertera di Perkara 3 Jadual Pertama tuan/puan tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat

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 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

Kumanaan A/L Anthony Vincent v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal

Kumanaan A/L Anthony Vincent v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohd Zawawi Salleh, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Kumanaan A/L Anthony Vincent v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA 177 Suit

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

MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT

MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT To: Malayan Banking Berhad (the Bank ) Branch / Cawangan MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT Dear Sirs: I/We the undersigned hereby request and authorise the Bank from time to time at my/our direction

More information

PROSEDUR SIVIL Diputuskan: [1] [2] [3]

PROSEDUR SIVIL Diputuskan: [1] [2] [3] 1 MALAYAN UNITED FINANCE BHD lwn. CHEUNG KONG PLANTATION SDN BHD & YANG LAIN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD H GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22(23)-341-86 24 JANUARI 2000 [2000] 2 CLJ 601 PROSEDUR

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B /2014 (IRN)] ANTARA MORTEZA HOSSEINKHANI MOSTAFA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B /2014 (IRN)] ANTARA MORTEZA HOSSEINKHANI MOSTAFA DAN DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05-267-09/2014 (IRN)] ANTARA MORTEZA HOSSEINKHANI MOSTAFA PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN [DIDENGAR BERSEKALI DENGAN RAYUAN

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

2. To declare the Final Dividend of 12% less 25% Malaysian Income Tax in respect of the financial year ended 31 December 2009.

2. To declare the Final Dividend of 12% less 25% Malaysian Income Tax in respect of the financial year ended 31 December 2009. 4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Fifteenth (15th) Annual General Meeting of the Company will be held at Ballroom Selangor 1, Grand Dorsett Subang Hotel, Jalan SS 12/1, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul

More information

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

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: /2013 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA KES KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29-3300-03/2013 PER : YASMIN PEREMA BINTI ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 730427-05-5030). PERAYU/ PENGHUTANG

More information

MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT

MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT To: Malayan Banking Berhad (the Bank ) Branch / Cawangan MAYBANK GOLD INVESTMENT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT Dear Sirs: I/We the undersigned hereby request and authorize the Bank from time to time at my/our direction

More information

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (SGHU 4342)

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (SGHU 4342) PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (SGHU 4342) WEEK 8-DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; REVOCATION, SAVINGS, TRANSITIONAL AND FEES SR DR. TAN LIAT CHOON 07-5530844 016-4975551 1 OUTLINE Disciplinary Proceedings Revocation,

More information

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 /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

More information

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION IN MALAYSIA BY GENDER AND LOCALITY PERSPECTIVES

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION IN MALAYSIA BY GENDER AND LOCALITY PERSPECTIVES UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION IN MALAYSIA BY GENDER AND LOCALITY PERSPECTIVES NOR AMNA A LIAH BINTI MOHAMMAD NOR FEP 2014 11 LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION IN MALAYSIA BY GENDER AND

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

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-629/01 BETWEEN SHARIKAT PERMODALAN KEBANGSAAN BERHAD AND MOHAMED JOHARI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-629/01 BETWEEN SHARIKAT PERMODALAN KEBANGSAAN BERHAD AND MOHAMED JOHARI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-629/01 BETWEEN SHARIKAT PERMODALAN KEBANGSAAN BERHAD AND MOHAMED JOHARI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN AWARD NO : 921 OF 2004 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone)

More information

D.R. 22/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Penduduk dan Pembangunan Keluarga 1966.

D.R. 22/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Penduduk dan Pembangunan Keluarga 1966. D.R. 22/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Penduduk dan Pembangunan Keluarga 1966. DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat

More information

UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT

UNDANG-UNDANG SYARIKAT 1 ALOR JANGGUS SOON SENG TRADING SDN. BHD. & LAGI lwn. SEY HOE SDN. BHD. & LAGI MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG DATO' ABDUL HAMID BIN HAJI MOHAMED, H GUAMAN SIVIL NO. 22-109-93 3 NOVEMBER 1993 [1994]

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

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 ] (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

More information

DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: /2016

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:

More information

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 /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

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

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