DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W
|
|
- Diane Howard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W ANTARA BOUNTY DYNAMICS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai MEDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) PERAYU DAN CHOW TAT MING DAN 175 LAGI RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No: S Antara Chow Tat Ming & 150 Yang Lain Plaintif-Plaintif Dan Meda Development Sdn Bhd & 10 Yang Lain Defendan-Defendan (Digabungkan bersama dengan menurut Perintah bertarikh ) Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Sivil) Guaman No: S Azizah Rahmad & 35 Yang Lain Antara Dan Plaintif-Plaintif Meda Development Sdn Bhd & 7 Yang Lain Defendan-Defendan)
2 CORAM: MOHAMAD ARIFF MD YUSOF, JCA ABANG ISKANDAR ABANG HASHIM, JCA UMI KALTHUM ABDUL MAJID, JCA BROAD GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] We have considered the submissions by the parties on the facts and the law, particularly in relation to the issue of limitation and the effect of this issue not being included as part of the agreed issues for trial. We have also evaluated and considered the other issues canvassed before us which may be summarised as follows: (i) Whether the respondents have established their case based on misrepresentation and breach of contract by the evidence of only two unit purchasers as witnesses, although the claim is by 176 unit buyers. (ii) Whether there was an agreement at case management to limit the number of witnesses for the plaintiffs to merely two witnesses. (iii) Whether the 1 st respondent has been properly authorised to act for the other 175 respondents by the warrants to act produced in court at the submission stage in the High Court. (iv) Whether there was a material inducement made by the appellant as developer in its advertisement brochure as a pre-contractual document to the respondents as purchasers to build the Food 2
3 Court on the 2 nd Floor of the Summit USJ ( the Complex ) and the Theme Park on the 3 rd and 4 th Floors of the Complex. (v) Whether the exemption clause in the brochure was effective in law to exclude liability for misrepresentation. (vi) Whether there was a continued misrepresentation in newsletters published to the purchasers after the execution of the SPAs that the Food Court and the Theme Park would continue to be built. (vii) Whether the respondents have pleaded fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, or merely innocent misrepresentation, for which no damages are claimable. (viii) Whether by selling the Complex (excluding the sold units to purchasers) to Maybank Trustees as Trustee as part of a REITS transaction (AmFirst Real Estate Investment Trust), the appellant had as developer disabled itself in law and in fact from constructing the Food Court and the Theme Park, and therefore was in breach of contract. (ix) Whether time should run from the date of the sale to Maybank Trustees for purposes of limitation. (x) Whether the Judicial Commissioner was correct in law to have ordered general and special damages to be assessed for both misrepresentation and breach of contract. 3
4 [2] The issue on limitation was not at all referred to by the Judicial Commissioner in the Judgment. Although limitation was not an issue expressly included in the Agreed Issues for Trial, this same issue is pleaded in the Defence of the appellant, and was raised in the course of the trial and in the submissions of both parties before the learned Judicial Commissioner. In these circumstances, we find that this issue had become part of the issues at the trial. The framing of Agreed Issues during case management is meant to facilitate the trial process; Agreed Issues are not in the nature of pleadings. Since both parties have departed from the Agreed Issues, the issue of limitation becomes relevant for judicial appreciation and evaluation by the Judicial Commissioner. Any objection to a departure from Agreed Issues should have been taken promptly at the point of time it emerged. A similar principle was applied in the context of pleadings in Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2003] 1 CLJ 585. In our view, the same principle should apply here. By not addressing this important issue, we find there has been a manifest non-direction on a critical aspect of the trial by the Judicial Commissioner. If the respondents claim is time barred under s. 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 (which is the applicable provision), the failure by the trial court to address this issue will be a glaring error of law founded on a clear misdirection, which will invite appellate intervention. [3] We have considered the respondents argument that the calculation of time should be from the date of the sale of the Complex to Maybank Trustees, i.e , and thus the suit has been filed within time. The Writs of Summons and Statements of Claim were filed on (for Suit No. S ) and (for Suit No. S ). 4
5 [4] Being a claim founded on contract, the principle of law is that a claim for breach of contract has to be commenced at the earliest possible time when the innocent party becomes aware of the breach. In the context of a sale and purchase of property in a development, the critical date will be the date of delivery of vacant possession, as defined in the relevant sale and purchase contract. On the facts of this case, it would have become apparent to the purchasers at the date of delivery of vacant possession whether or not the Food Court and/or the Theme Park had been constructed. The date of delivery of vacant possession was The SPAs had been signed variously between to For purposes of limitation, the cut-off date will be [5] We therefore agree with the submission by the appellant that the claim is time barred. On this ground alone, the appeal should be allowed. We also note that the fact of the sale of the Complex to Maybank Trustee has not been pleaded by the respondents. The fact that this is a date subsequent to the date of filing of the Writs of Summons demonstrates that this later date cannot be a relevant date for purposes of calculating limitation in any event. [6] We further find that there is nothing in the SPAs to prevent the appellant from entering into the transaction with Maybank Trustees, and no issue of the appellant allegedly escaping its contractual obligations really arise on the facts and the law. [7] On the facts too, this is not a case of a total absence of the construction and facilitation of the Food Court and Theme Park. There was in fact a Food Court in existence and managed by Haruman Horizon Sdn Bhd and Nadagaya Sdn Bhd. There was also a tenancy entered into 5
6 with Roxy Leisure Sdn Bhd to operate the Theme Park, but this was followed by a letter of early termination by Roxy Leisure. On the evidence, the termination was by mutual consent of Roxy Leisure and the appellant because of the prevailing economic condition. [8] We also note the appellant had also entered into a tenancy agreement with Fajar Retail Enterprise Sdn Bd in 2002, with Fajar as an anchor tenant. [9] In any event, we are of the view that on the facts and the law, there was no firm promise by the appellant to construct the Food Court and the Theme Park and to ensure that these should continue to exist, no matter what the economic circumstances were. We are persuaded by the appellant s argument that the 4 th Schedule included in the 28 separate SPAs adduced do not uniformly depict the Food Court and/or the Theme Park as a contractual obligation to construct. A SPA involving a 1 st Floor unit will not include any area depicted as a Food Court, which is on the 2 nd Floor. Nor would a SPA for a 2nd Floor unit show any area for a Theme Park, since the Theme Park will be on the 3 rd and 4 th Floors. On this basis, the argument that the representation in the advertisement brochure had been incorporated in the sale and purchase contract by the inclusion of Schedule 4, is not convincing in law. [10] As for the legal bindingness of the representation in the advertisement brochure as a pre-contractual document, it is common ground that there exists an exemption clause, no doubt in the customary small print. As such the representations made should be read as mere puffs and not binding promises. At most, these are in the nature of an invitation to treat (Eckhardt Marine GMBH v Sheriff, High Court of Malaya, 6
7 Seremban & Ors [2001] 4 MLJ 49). In this connection, the learned Judicial Commissioner has also failed to evaluate this exemption clause leading to an error of law which again invites intervention on our part. [11] The other representations made in the post-contractual newsletters too should remain as they really are, namely representations without contractual effect made to the tenants of the Complex at large. There is no evidence of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation in these circumstances. [12] On the facts of this case, the respondents have been delivered the units they have purchased in the Complex, which are not structurally or fundamentally different from that promised in the SPAs, 4 th Schedule. The facts here are quite unlike the facts in Balakrishnan Devaraj v Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd [2010] 7 CLJ 152, an authority advanced by counsel for the appellant. Balakrishnan Devaraj, supra, also lays down the principle that a party to an innocent misrepresentation can only resort to the remedy of rescission and restitution if the contract for sale of land remains executory in form and has not been fully executed. On the facts of this appeal, we are minded to find a case of innocent misrepresentation for which no damages would be claimable. The SPAs here too have all been fully executed and the properties delivered. [13] In connection with the order on damages to be assessed granted by the Judicial Commissioner, we agree that there are elements of duplicity. A plaintiff must in law decide whether he is pursuing a claim on misrepresentation or breach of contract. He is not entitled to be awarded damages both for misrepresentation and breach of contract. Once a representation becomes a clause in the contract, such as argued here by 7
8 the respondents, there cannot therefore be an order for damages to be assessed for both misrepresentation and breach of contract. [14] On the issue whether there was an agreement at case management stage to limit the number of witnesses for the plaintiffs to two principal witnesses, we have studied the record and it would appear that there was such an agreement. Counsel for the respondents has reinforced this argument by highlighting to us that on the same basis, it was agreed that the decision in Suit No. 145 was to bind Suit No This agreement, to our mind, would only make some sense on the assumption that the alleged misrepresentations in the brochures, SPAs, and the newsletters acted uniformly on the minds of the purchasers. It would therefore appear that this assumption must have been implicit in the common understanding to limit the number of witnesses. Nevertheless, given our decision on the other legal issues, particularly on the issue of limitation, it no longer becomes important to decide whether by limiting the number of witnesses for the plaintiffs/respondents to two principal witnesses, the respondents have in fact adduced sufficient necessary and relevant evidence to establish misrepresentation and breach of contract, since misrepresentation will act differently on the minds of each of the 175 purchasers. [15] Finally, we have to mention the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the status of the 1 st respondent to represent the rest of the respondents. We have been shown copies of the Warrants to Act, which were only produced during the submissions stage in the High Court. These do not speak of authorising the 1 st respondent to give testimony on behalf of all other respondents. In the total circumstances again, this is not an overly major point that can be regarded as determinative of this appeal. All said 8
9 and done, the other respondents or any of them have not raised any objection to the 1 st respondent representing them. The point is now being taken as really a subsidiary and lesser ground by the appellant, more as a technical point rather than a substantive issue. Given the existence of the agreement at case management to limit the number of witnesses, it would have been more prudent for the appellant to have taken up this issue of warrant to act at this earlier stage. [16] To summarise, in the premises above, we are unanimously allowing this appeal. The order of the High Court dated is set aside. We award costs of RM30, here and below to the appellant. The deposit is to be refunded to the appellant. [17] We need to add that the grounds above are our broad grounds on the main points of the appeal. We will further expand and supplement these grounds in the event of an appeal. Sgd. (DATO MOHAMAD ARIFF BIN MD YUSOF) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Dated: 21 st November
10 Counsels/Solicitors For the appellant: Lim Chee Wee (Vincent Lim Seng Liang, Rajbinder Singh & Nathalie Ker with him) Messrs Dennis Nik & Wong For the respondents: Dato Harpal Singh Grewal (Datin Harwinder Kaur & Julian Chan with him) Messrs A. J. Ariffin, Yeo & Harpal 10
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W /2014] ANTARA PERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02-1326-08/2014] ANTARA PERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD PERAYU DAN JMC-KELANA SQUARE RESPONDEN [RAYUAN SIVIL NO W-02(W)-1655-10/2015]
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B /2014 ANTARA PROFIL SAUJANA (M) SDN BHD DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-02-857-05/2014 PROFIL SAUJANA (M) SDN BHD AZABAR HOLDINGS ANTARA DAN PERAYU RESPONDEN (DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(C)(A) /2016 BETWEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(C)(A)-1400-08/2016 BETWEEN 1. JAN DE NUL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD... APPELLANTS (COMPANY NO. 414113-K) 2. JAN DE NUL GROUP (SOFIDRA
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] /2014 RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] /2014
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] 1840-10/2014 RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02 [IM] [NCVC] 1810-10/2014 ANTARA 1. AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 2. TEE SOONG
More informationRAYUAN SIVIL NO. W Antara. 5. Kamil Ahmad Merican. Perayu-Perayu. Dan. Didengar bersama-sama dengan
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02-1003-2009 Antara 1. Ace Heights (M) Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat 400572 D) 2. Dato Abdullah B. Mohd Yusof 3. Abbas Bin Yaacob 4. Harith
More informationMAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C-20-09/2014 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR DAN
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C--09/14 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR PLAINTIF DAN 1. PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD (No. Syarikat
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationBETWEEN. LAI CHENG OOI (f) (the executrix of the estate of Lee Tain Lee Thien Chiung, deceased) AND
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. S-01(IM)(NCVC)-145-04/2016 [Kota Kinabalu High Court OS No. BKI-24NCVC-44/5-2015] BETWEEN LAI CHENG OOI (f) (the
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCC)(W) /2013 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCC)(W)-2303-10/2013 ANTARA SILVER CORRIDOR SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 367720-V) - PERAYU DAN 1. GALLANT ACRES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat:
More informationWong Kian Wah v Ng Kien Boon
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA; Abdul Rahman Sebli, JCA; Mary Lim, JCA Wong Kian Wah v Ng Kien Boon Citation: [2018] MYCA 230 Suit Number: Civil Appeal No. W 02(NCVC)(W)
More informationDALAM 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC) /2014 BETWEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC)-676-04/2014 BETWEEN ZAMIL STEEL VIETNAM BUILDINGS CO. LTD. - APPELLANT AND G.T.K. BERHAD (Company No.: 198500-P)
More informationJUDGMENT (Court enclosure no. 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22IP-37-09/2017 BETWEEN DARUL FIKIR (Business Registration No.: 000624088-H)
More informationKAEDAH-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 informationKAEDAH-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 informationPilecon Engineering Bhd ABDUL KADIR SULAIMAN, JCA ARIFIN ZAKARIA, JCA NIK HASHIM NIK AB. RAHMAN, JCA 23 FEBRUARY 2007
COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA Bintulu Development Authority - vs - Coram Pilecon Engineering Bhd ABDUL KADIR SULAIMAN, JCA ARIFIN ZAKARIA, JCA NIK HASHIM NIK AB. RAHMAN, JCA 23 FEBRUARY 2007 Judgment of the
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(C)(A) /2014 ANTARA. CHAIN CYCLE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: ) DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01(C)(A)-379-09/2014 ANTARA CHAIN CYCLE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 366266) - PERAYU DAN KERAJAAN MALAYSIA - RESPONDEN ----------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN 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 information2A. To reappoint the following directors who are above the 70 years of age and have offered themselves for re-election:- Note 2A
Incorporated in Malaysia AMENDMENT TO THE NOTICE OF 10 TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND PROXY FORM Dear shareholders of Hap Seng Plantations Holdings Berhad, Reference is made to the notice of 10 th Annual
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SUMMONS WRIT NO: BETWEEN AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SUMMONS WRIT NO: 22-753-2005 BETWEEN WING FAH ENTERPRISE SDN BHD PLAINTIFF AND MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (M)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) SITTING AT KUCHING, SARAWAK CIVIL APPEAL NO. Q /2013. Appellant YUNG ING ING
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) SITTING AT KUCHING, SARAWAK CIVIL APPEAL NO. Q-02-2628-12/2013 Appellant YUNG ING ING v. Respondent HUNFARA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. [In the matter
More informationHeld: 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 informationINDUSTRIAL 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 informationINDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : 1/1-8/18 BETWEEN NATIONAL UNION OF HOTEL, BAR & RESTAURANT WORKERS, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA AND
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : 1/1-8/18 BETWEEN NATIONAL UNION OF HOTEL, BAR & RESTAURANT WORKERS, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA AND ALOR SETAR HOLIDAY VILLA SDN. BHD. AWARD NO. : 1375 OF 2018 CORAM: YA
More informationGUIDELINES FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION JULY 2003 Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Level 11, Menara Dato Onn PWTC, Jalan Tun Ismail 50480
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : 42S ANTARA KHOR SOCK KHIM LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA JUDGMENT
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : 42S-4-02-2016 ANTARA KHOR SOCK KHIM LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision
More informationIREKA CORPORATION BERHAD
Page 1 of 7 IREKA CORPORATION BERHAD (Co. No. 25882A) (Incorporated in Malaysia) EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE FORTYFIRST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD AT DEWAN BERJAYA, BUKIT KIARA EQUESTRIAN
More informationFor the appellants Lim Kian Leong (Tony Ng TT, Keith Kwan & Rachel Tan Pak Theen with him); M/s Mohd Zain & Co
NGAN & NGAN HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR v. CENTRAL MERCANTILE CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD [2010] 3 CLJ 818 COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA HELILIAH MOHD YUSOF JCA, KN SEGARA JCA, RAMLY ALI JCA [CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-85-2007]
More informationFRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover, 500 pages Publication Price: MYR 200.00 CONTENTS Chapter 1 STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD Representation Misrepresentation Fraudulent
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA Thye Hin Enterprises Sdn Bhd - vs - Daimlerchrysler
Coram COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA Thye Hin Enterprises Sdn Bhd - vs - Daimlerchrysler MOHD GHAZALI JCA NIK HASHIM JCA H.B. LOW J 28 JULY 2004 Judgment Mohd Ghazali JCA (delivering the judgment of the court)
More informationIN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(i)-15-04/2014(C) BETWEEN SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD AND SUMMARY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(i)-15-04/2014(C) BETWEEN SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD.. APPELLANT AND 1. KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR 2. PENGARAH
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: J-05(LB)-54-01/2016 ANTARA TAN CHOW CHEANG PERAYU DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: J-05(LB)-54-01/2016 ANTARA TAN CHOW CHEANG PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di
More informationNOTICE OF 41 ST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the 41 st Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Bursa Malaysia Berhad (the Company) will be held at Ballroom 2, 1 st Floor, Sime Darby Convention Centre, 1A Jalan Bukit Kiara 1, 60000
More informationMALAYSIA 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 informationthe 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 informationNOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Seventeenth (17th) Annual General Meeting ( AGM ) of the Company will be held at Ballroom 1 & 2, Setia City Convention Centre, No. 1, Jalan Setia
More informationMehrzad Nabavieh & Anor v Chong Shao Fen & Anor and Another Appeal
Mehrzad Nabavieh & Anor v Chong Shao Fen & Anor and Another Appeal COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA CIVIL APPEALS NOs: W 02 (NCVC) (W) 1698 07/2013 & W 0 2(NCVC) (W) 1699 07/2013 ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN JCA, LIM
More informationHeld: 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 informationCN ASIA CORPORATION BHD ( A)
CN ASIA CORPORATION BHD (399442-A) MINUTES of the Twenty-First (21st) Annual General Meeting ( AGM ) of CN Asia Corporation Bhd ( Company ) held at the Meeting Room 1, Level UG, ibis Styles Kuala Lumpur
More informationSale of Land: Is it necessary to sign a contract? By Ho Ai Ting 25 February 2016
Sale of Land: Is it necessary to sign a contract? By Ho Ai Ting 25 February 2016 AGENDA Introduction Elements of Contract Common Misconception Incomplete Agreements Are They Binding? Reasonable Man Test
More informationDALAM 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 informationREGULATORY OVERVIEW. Civil liability in relation to product liability claims arises under the law of contract and/ or the law of negligence.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN HONG KONG Product liability In Hong Kong, there is no specific legal regime regulating product liability. The law in these areas, both civil and criminal, can be found in legislations
More informationDALAM 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 informationDALAM 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 informationABDUL 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 informationThe following amending Act came into force on 20 February 2015:
Legal Updates February 2015 Legislation The following amending Act came into force on 20 February 2015: Companies Commission of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2015 [Act A1478], except sections 9-11, 13-15 [PU(B)
More informationNOTICE OF ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
More informationCOMPANY LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE Held: [1] [2]
1 TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ZAIN & ORS v. UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD & ORS HIGH COURT MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-265-95 12 OCTOBER 1998 [1998] 4 CLJ 321 COMPANY LAW: Suit by Company
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial
More informationREVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT) Act 236 of 1961 CHAPTER 57 SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PREMISES
REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT) Act 236 of 1961 CHAPTER 57 SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PREMISES 600.5701 Definitions. [M.S.A. 27a.5701] Sec. 5701. As used in this chapter: (a)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO: D BETWEEN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO: D5-22-1924-1999 BETWEEN TUCK SIN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat:
More informationIN 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 informationECM LIBRA FINANCIAL GROUP BERHAD ( ECM or the Company ) (Company No K) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
ECM LIBRA FINANCIAL GROUP BERHAD ( ECM or the Company ) (Company No. 713570-K) (Incorporated in Malaysia) MINUTES of the Thirteenth Annual General Meeting of ECM Libra Financial Group Berhad held at Dewan
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WRIT NO: 22IP-29-06/2015 BETWEEN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WRIT NO: 22IP-29-06/2015 BETWEEN 1) WORLD GRAND DYNAMIC MARKETING SDN BHD (Company No
More informationJUDGMENT. Low Hop Bing JCA:
DANCOM TELECOMMUNICATION (M) SDN BHD v. UNIASIA GENERAL INSURANCE BHD COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA LOW HOP BING JCA, HELILIAH YUSOF JCA, ABDUL MALIK ISHAK JCA [CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-259-2005] 1 AUGUST 2008
More informationZELAN BERHAD (Company No: V) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
MINUTES OF THE FORTY-FIRST (41 ST ) ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING ( AGM OR MEETING ) OF ZELAN BERHAD ( ZELAN OR COMPANY ) HELD AT MAHKOTA II, BR LEVEL, HOTEL ISTANA, 73, JALAN RAJA CHULAN, 50250 KUALA LUMPUR
More informationDebtors 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 informationMinister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA)
Legal Updates April 2015 Cases Administrative Law Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia v Diamet Klang (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2015] 2 AMR 659; [2013] 1 LNS * 1466 (CA) Whether (i) minister
More informationANCOM LOGISTICS BERHAD (6614-W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
(Incorporated in Malaysia) MINUTES OF THE 52 ND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD AT SELANGOR BALLROOM 1, DORSETT GRAND SUBANG, JALAN SS12/1, 47500 SUBANG JAYA SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ON THURSDAY,
More informationBERMAZ AUTO BERHAD (Formerly Known As Berjaya Auto Berhad) (Company No: M) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
BERMAZ AUTO BERHAD (Formerly Known As Berjaya Auto Berhad) (Company No: 900557-M) (Incorporated in Malaysia) An Extract of Minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company held at Perdana Ballroom,
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: N-06B-55-09/2016 [RAYUAN JENAYAH NEGERI SEMBILAN : 42LB(A)-21 & 22-04/2015]
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: N-06B-55-09/2016 [RAYUAN JENAYAH NEGERI SEMBILAN : 42LB(A)-21 & 22-04/2015] ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA PERAYU DAN SUBBARAU @ KAMALANATHAN
More informationDALAM 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 informationBRIGHT PACKAGING INDUSTRY BERHAD
THIS CIRCULAR IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in any doubt as to the course of action to be taken, you should consult your stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant
More informationNOTICE OF ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE HONK KONG INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ADMINISTERED ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) NOTICE
More informationTHE JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
29 th LAWASIA CONFERENCE 12 15 August 2016 Colombo, Sri Lanka THE JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Steven Thiru President Malaysian Bar The Malaysian judiciary, like their English counter-parts,
More informationM A L A Y S I A IN THE HIGH COURT OF SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. BKI-13NCvC-32/ BETWEEN
M A L A Y S I A IN THE HIGH COURT OF SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. BKI-1NCvC-2/-20 BETWEEN PADUAN HEBAT SDN BHD APPLICANT AND THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KOTA KINABALU 1 ST RESPONDENT
More informationPLAINTIFFS' SKELETAL SUBMISSIONS (CROSS-EXAMINATION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. S2-23 - 38-2006 BETWEEN 1. SARAWAK SHELL BHD (71978-W) 2. SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SENDIRIAN BERHAD (6078-M) 3. SHELL REFINING
More informationMALAYSIA 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 informationView Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd*
CIDB Construction Law Report 2016 View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd* COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA CIVIL APPEAL NO: W 02(C)(A) 1507 09/2015 HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER JCA, PRASAD SANDOSHAM ABRAHAM
More informationDALAM 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 informationREQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
More informationFuneral Planning Authority Rules
Funeral Planning Authority Rules 1. GENERAL 1.1 Interpretation In these Rules: "Appellant" means the party serving a Disciplinary Appeal Notice in accordance with Rule 7.9.1; "Applicant" means a person
More information294 GOODS VEHICLE LEVY ACT
Goods Vehicle Levy 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 294 GOODS VEHICLE LEVY ACT 1983 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY
More informationCIRCULAR 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 informationTARIFF OF COSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS. Fees Payable to Lawyers in the Following Courts and Matters
TARIFF OF COSTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE PAGE SCHEDULE 1 Fees Payable to Lawyers in the Following Courts and Matters A In the Court of Appeal... 1 B In the Court of Queen s Bench... 3 C In the Court
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. K /2011 ANTARA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. K-01-699-11/2011 ANTARA MEENACHI HOLDING AND TRADING (M) SDN BHD - PERAYU DAN 1. SERBA KEMAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 138993-V) 2. PENTADBIR
More information19 Jan 2018 Ref : Chans advice/204. To: Transport Industry Operators. Bunker dispute
To: Transport Industry Operators 19 Jan 2018 Ref : Chans advice/204 Bunker dispute The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 20/12/2017 dealing with a dispute of US$948,802.05 (as the price of bunkers
More informationNotice of Annual General Meeting
MAXIS BERHAD (Company No. 867573-A) (Incorporated in Malaysia) Notice of Annual General Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Ninth Annual General Meeting of MAXIS BERHAD ( the Company ) will be held
More informationAPPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956.
APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956. The common law of English and rules of equity is only applicable
More informationNON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN. EDOTCO MALAYSIA SDN BHD (formerly known as Celcom Services Sdn Bhd) (Company No H) AND
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDOTCO MALAYSIA SDN BHD (formerly known as Celcom Services Sdn Bhd) (Company No. 148800-H) AND [to fill] (Company No. [to fill]) THIS NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (hereinafter
More informationSALE OF BULBS: BUYERS CONDITIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
SALE OF BULBS: BUYERS CONDITIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTERPRETATION... 1 2. CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE... 2 3. AGENT S STATUS... 2 4. BASIS OF CONTRACT... 2 5. DELIVERY, TITLE AND RISK... 2 6. PRICE AND PAYMENT...
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ASAL) NO: (B) ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ASAL) NO: 1-12-2012(B) ANTARA 1. ZI PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. 398106-W) 2. MOHD EZRA BIN MOHD ZAID PEMPETISYEN- PEMPETISYEN DAN KERAJAAN NEGERI
More informationGENETEC TECHNOLOGY BERHAD ( W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
GENETEC TECHNOLOGY BERHAD (445537-W) (Incorporated in Malaysia) MINUTES OF THE 20 th ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (the AGM or Meeting ) Venue : Multi-Purpose Hall, 2nd Floor, Lot 5, Jalan P10/12, Kawasan Perusahaan
More informationAWARD 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 informationMMC Engineering Group Bhd & Anor v Wayss & Freytag (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
CIDB Construction Law Report 2015 MMC Engineering Group Bhd & Anor v Wayss & Freytag (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: 24C(ARB) 2 05/2013 MARY LIM THIAM SUAN J 11 MAY
More informationINDUSTRIAL 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 informationIN 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 informationDALAM 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 informationREQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. 22NCvC /2014 BETWEEN AND
IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. 22NCvC-561-12/2014 BETWEEN BOON SIEW KAM PLAINTIFF AND 1. SATISH SELVANATHAN 2. ANJHULA MYA SINGH BAIS 3. PREMIUM OILS & FATS
More information