DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2016 ANTARA. Dan
|
|
- Rosaline May
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /16 5 ANTARA Berkenaan : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : ) Dan Ex-Parte : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : ) 1. MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 938-H) 2. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 3813-K) 3. ALLIANCE INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: D) 4. DBS BANK LIMITED (NO. SYARIKAT: C) 5. AFFIN BANK BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 046-T) PEMOHON-PEMOHON 30 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. Enclosure is Applicants application for inter alia the following- (1) that the Receiving Order made by the Court on (RO) be set aside; (2) that the Debtor, Lim Cheng Pow (Debtor) be declared guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the requirements of section 16 of Bankruptcy Act 1967 including, inter alia, not disclosing his assets in full and in transferring assets out despite the existence of RO and be punished in such manner as the Court deems fit; and 1
2 (3) that the Applicants be granted leave to continue and proceed with the committal proceedings commenced against Debtor in the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Originating Summons No. 24NCC /14. 5 On the Court granted leave to Applicants in respect of prayer (3). 2. The relevant grounds as stated in the application were as follows- (a) The Applicants are creditors of the Debtor; (b) Prior to the presentation of the Debtor s Petition herein, there was already a pending bankruptcy action filed by the 1 st Applicant against the debtor in the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Bankruptcy No. 29NCC /, which the Debtor was vigorously opposing, (c) However, unknown to the Applicants, the Debtor then chose to apply for and obtained an RO against his assets. RO was applied for by the Debtor himself, for the reason that there was purportedly a scheme of arrangement for the creditors consideration. To date, no creditor s meeting has been fixed and no proposed scheme was ever presented to the creditors, (d) The Debtor deliberately omitted to declare all of his assets in its Statement of Affairs and the Statement of Affairs lacked particulars as required by section 16 (1) of RO Bankruptcy Act The Debtor in fact transferred assets after RO was obtained, (e) There is no bona fide scheme. The present proceedings commenced at the Debtor s instance is an abuse of the process of the Court, and 2
3 (f) The RO is flawed and ought to be set aside As there were 5 Applicants, all of them filed affidavits in support and further affidavits. Where necessary in so far as Applicants are concerned the Court will only refer to the affidavits of one Saraswathy Varadarajan (Saraswathy) from 1 st Applicant as the affidavits from the other Applicants repeated and adopted Saraswathy s averments in her affidavits. Facts leading to application 4. In Saraswathy s affidavit in support (enclosure 16) were set out the salient facts leading to the application. (a) Judgment dated On st and 2 nd Applicants obtained judgment against Debtor (exhibit MIBB-I ) for the sum of RM9,633, with interest to be paid to 1 st Applicant (MIBB 13 Judgment Debt) and a sum of RM2,264, with interest to be paid to 2 nd Applicant (MBB 13 Judgment Debt). 6. Bankruptcy actions were filed on Both bankruptcy actions were resisted by Debtor who maintained his inability to pay his debts (exhibits MIBB-3 and MIBB-5 ). On Debtor settled MBB s 13 Judgment Debt and MBB s bankruptcy action was withdrawn. The bankruptcy action of 1 st Applicant filed vide 29NCC / (Exhibit MIBB-4 ) in Kuala Lumpur High Court (KLHC) proceeded. Hearing of Creditor s Petition (CP) fixed on did not proceed due to RO. 3
4 (b) Judgment dated On 5-- Applicants obtained judgment against Debtor (exhibit MIBB-6, judgment) in KLCH suit 22NCC / ( suit) for the sum of RM124,489, with interest. This arose from a Sale & Purchase Agreement dated between Million Westlink Sdn Bhd, Debtor and Applicants (SPA) whereby Million Westlink agreed to purchase Redeemable Convertible Secured Notes (Notes) of which Applicants were holders. The Notes were issued by Gula Perak Bhd. Debtor guaranteed performance of SPA via a Guarantee dated suit was filed for breach of SPA and Guarantee and judgment obtained. Stay of execution of judgment 8. On Debtor s appeal against judgment was dismissed by Court of Appeal. On when enclosure came up for hearing the Court was informed the Federal Court (FC) had on stayed execution of judgment and subsequently learnt leave had been granted to appeal to FC. Preliminary issue 9. A preliminary issue was thus raised whether Applicants could proceed with enclosure in light of stay of execution of judgment by FC.. The Court took the view this was not a case where Applicants had presented a bankruptcy action against Debtor based on judgment obtained against Debtor. Enclosure was not an execution of judgment but an application filed on the basis of abuse of process by Debtor in 4
5 obtaining RO. It thus follows despite the stay of judgment enclosure could proceed as it was not an execution of judgment. There was therefore no basis to the submission that Applicants having elected to file an earlier application to intervene on the basis of them being creditors under judgment can no longer assert their standing as creditors due to the stay of execution. 11. Further, the application to intervene in enclosure 29 was granted by consent on where there was nothing indicated by Debtor the consent was on his recognition Applicants are creditors only under judgment. Analysis and Court s finding (a) Law on setting aside RO 12. At the outset it is noted there is no provision in Bankruptcy Act 1967 (BA) nor Bankruptcy Rules 1969 (BR) that deal with setting aside of RO. The provision in section 14 BA which provides for power of court to rescind RO does not apply in this instant application, as acknowledged by Applicants. 13. However it is the Court s finding it has the power to do so pursuant to section 91 BA. The aforesaid provision states as follows- 91. General power of the bankruptcy courts (1) Subject to this Act, the court under its jurisdiction in bankruptcy, shall have power to decide all questions of priorities and all other questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may arise in any case of bankruptcy coming within the cognizance of the court, or which the court deems it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing 5
6 complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case In United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd v Loke Lai Ying [03] 3 MLJ 1 it was stated at page 5-6- Section 91(1) of the Act, as far as the limb that we have quoted is concerned, gives full power to the court to decide all questions for the purpose of doing complete justice in bankruptcy cases. The emphasis of the section is on deciding all questions, whether of fact or of law. It tells the judge that to do complete justice he has full power to decide all questions and he should exercise the power if necessary. Do not leave any question undecided, if by not deciding it complete justice will not be done. Do not leave any stone unturned in the pursuit of complete justice. But it is not the intention of the section that if the answer to a question is found to be in favour of a creditor, the debtor is yet to be saved on the perception that that would be doing complete justice. Complete justice id owned to both parties equally, not to one only. If in the interest of doing justice a question is decided and decided in favour of a party, the consequence of the decision ought to be given effect to... Aside from section 91 BA the Court has inherent jurisdiction to so decide. Rule 276 BR states that In the absence of any rule regulating any proceedings under this Act or these Rules, the Rules of the High Court shall apply, mutatis mutandis As to the Rules of High Court, Order 92 Rule 4 of Rules of Court 12 states as follows- Inherent power of the Court For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court
7 17. Thus despite the absence of an express provision in BA or BR, section 91 BA confers on the Court the power to set aside RO. This coupled with the inherent jurisdiction of the Court makes it clearer. The question which arises is what are the circumstances under which the Court may do so. Section 91 BA speaks of doing complete justice while Order 92 Rule 4 speaks of preventing injustice or an abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Debtor s counsel submitted section 7 BA required the Debtor s Petition to set be aside before RO can be set aside and in this instance since there was no attack on the Debtor s Petition there can be no setting aside of RO. Section 7(1) states A debtor s petition shall allege that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and the court shall thereupon make a receiving order. In Re Painter [1894] 1 QB 85 was cited to support this proposition where at page 91 the Court there was unable to say that the petition was presented for a purpose foreign to the bankruptcy laws and therefore allowed the appeal and did not annul the adjudication. However upon perusing In Re Painter (supra) the court there recognized at page 92- There may be cases in which the debtor s object in presenting a petition is so distinctly foreign to the purposes with the Bankruptcy Act that it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court; but in my opinion this is not such a case, and I think the adjudication ought to stand. (emphasis added) Thus the court recognized the power to set aside but did not so for the reasons it gave. 7
8 19. In Re Betts [1901] 2 KB 39 there was a setting aside of RO without setting aside the petition. There the Court found abuse of process in warranting the setting aside. At page 41 it was stated- As to the law there is no doubt. It has been established in In Re Painter, that where a debtor files his own petition the proceedings in bankruptcy ought not to be stopped merely on the ground that his object in filing the petition is to escape the effect of an order against him under the Debtors Act; I do not wish to criticise a word that was said in that case. There must, however, be a limit to a debtor s immunity; and if it appears as a fact that a debtor is in the habit of filing bankruptcy petitions, so that the bankruptcy law is really being made use of in order to assist him in his frauds on his creditors, and to enable him to get credit, while he all along has the intention of getting rid of his liabilities by filing his own petition, I cannot think that such a state of things comes within the protection of the bankruptcy law...there are abundant grounds for rescinding the receiving order,. RO can thus be set aside without an attack on petition being made. (b) Grounds for setting aside RO. The grounds for this Court to set aside RO were premised on abuse of process for non compliance with section 16 BA in relation to Debtor s Statement of Affairs (including assets in Australia), non disclosure of material facts, failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to Director General of Insolvency (DGI) and RO being flawed. 30 (i) Non compliance of section 16 BA 21. Section 16 (1) and (2) BA states the following- 16. Debtor s statement of affairs (1) Where a receiving order is made against a debtor he shall make out and submit to the Director General of Insolvency a statement of and in relation to his affairs in the prescribed form, verified by affidavit, showing the particulars of the debtor s assets, debts and liabilities, the names, 8
9 residences and occupations of his creditors, the securities held by them respectively, the dates when the securities were respectively given, the cause of his insolvency, the date when he last balanced his accounts before becoming insolvent, the amount of his capital at the date of such balance, after providing for all his liabilities and making allowances for bad and doubtful debts, and such further and other information as is prescribed or as the Director General of Insolvency requires. (2) The statement shall be so submitted within the following times: (a) if the order is made on the petition of the debtor, within seven days from the date of the order; Debtor s Statement of Affairs filed on can be seen in exhibit MIBB-14 which is essentially his affidavit verifying statement of affairs as per his exhibit LCP-I. In Table G-List of assets was listed one landed asset in item 1 Lot 66 Mukim of Setapak, Town of Kuala Lumpur. In paragraph 40 of Saraswathy s affidavit it was stated Debtor made an untrue statement and omitted to declare all of his assets. Paragraph 41 then stated Debtor owed 8 other properties and these were listed. Debtor in paragraph 11 of his affidavit in reply in enclosure 21 stated the Statement of Affairs was prepared by himself without any advice from solicitors and due to this there was some information not included and it was not deliberately omitted. 23. Out of the 8 other properties listed by Applicants it was the Court s finding there had been a failure by Debtor to disclose 3 assets. Those were in respect of- (1) Geran No Lot No , Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur; (2) Geran No Lot No , Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur; and (3) Geran No Lot No , Mukim Batu Kuala Lumpur. 9
10 24. In respect of Geran No and Debtor admitted in his paragraph the properties were essentially his and charged to Straits Capital Corporation Sdn Bhd (chargee). He was verbally informed by chargee the properties will be sold and he genuinely believed and was under the impression as they would be sold he would no longer be the proprietor and thus these were not declared.. It is evident exhibit LCP-2 showed Debtor to be the registered proprietor and the fact of the charge. However there were no documents to support his statement of a potential sale by chargee. Even if there were such documents and prior to any sale Debtor remained the proprietor and this was not disclosed. Debtor was only prepared to state he would amend his Statement of Affairs (paragraph, 2 nd affidavit in reply, enclosure 27) to include the properties charged. 26. It was also contended the properties alleged to be omitted was due to time constraint as the Statement of Affairs was required to be filed within 7 days from date of RO. Although the time line of 7 days was correct and is the requirement under section 16 (2) BA, this time constraint was never raised in the Debtor s affidavits and was a submission from the Bar. In any event the 7 days requirement is no excuse for Debtor to omit listing properties owned by him, charge or no charge. 27. With respect to Geran No , it was transferred to Cloverchip Sdn Bhd (Cloverchip) on (land search in exhibit MIBB-16 ) which is 4 days after RO. Debtor in his paragraph 16 of affidavit in reply stated the S&P with Cloverchip was entered on -12- and the S&P
11 was attached in exhibit LCP-3. Purchase price was RM4.85 million. Pursuant to clause 5.1, the balance purchase price of RM2.965 million was to be paid upon the expiry of 14 days after the presentation of the transfer at the relevant land office. The transfer was presented on after the RO of Subsequently Debtor stated in supplementary affidavit dated in enclosure 56 he gave a discount of RM2.4 million to Cloverchip as per letter dated in exhibit LCP-1 and the total purchase price was RM2.4 million. 28. As rightly pointed out by counsel for Applicants, this issue of discount was only raised 4 months after the S&P was produced in Debtor s affidavit in reply with no reasons why the letter of discount was only raised now despite the discount being given on No explanation was given for this discount which is nearly half the purchase price. The discount appeared doubtful and points towards Debtor s intention to reduce the amount to be declared and included in the Statement of Affairs. 29. In paragraph 13 of Saraswathy s affidavit in reply in enclosure 22 it was stated Debtor failed to disclose assets held by him in other country and in paragraph of enclosure 35 that Debtor willfully refused to disclose if he has any other properties in any other country. This was essentially denied and Applicants were put to strict proof (paragraph 18 of Debtor s affidavit in reply in enclosure 27 and paragraph 14 of enclosure 40). 30. By Saraswathy s supplemental affidavit in enclosure 165 and as per exhibit MIBB-C it was stated in paragraph 5 the following- 11
12 (a) The Debtor is a shareholder of the following companies registered in Australia- (i) Fortcom Pty Ltd (owning 80% of the total shares issued); (ii) Grand Holdings Pty Ltd (owning 81% of the total shares issued); (iii) Luteum Pty Ltd (owning 99.99% of the total shares issued); and (iv) Straits Properties Pty Ltd (owning 93% of the total shares issued). (b) The Debtor is a director of the following companies registered in Australia- (i) Fortcom Pty Ltd; and (ii) Straits Properties Pty Ltd In Debtor s 7 th affidavit in reply in enclosure 178, Debtor stated in paragraph 16- I have no knowledge that I need to disclose the directorship and shares outside Malaysia. At all times, I have relied on my solicitor s advice and I was advised that as the effect of bankruptcy in Malaysia will not have any effect on my asset in Australia, I was under the impression that there is no obligation to disclose Applicants had already been pressing for disclosure of Debtor s assets outside Malaysia only to be met with a denial. It was only when Applicants came up with its exhibit MIBB-C to show Debtor s shareholding and directorship in companies in Australia did Debtor then say he was under the impression there was no obligation to disclose. indeed a failure to disclosure assets outside Malaysia. There was 30 (ii) Non disclosure of material facts 33. As stated under the heading facts leading to application, the bankruptcy action of 1 st Applicant pursuant to MIBB 13 Judgment Debt in KLHC proceeded with CP fixed on Due to RO obtained, hearing of CP could not proceed. 12
13 34. As submitted by Applicants counsel which this Court agrees, Debtor could have applied for RO in MIBB bankruptcy action but did not and chose to file it in Shah Alam on This was just days before hearing of CP in KLHC on In filing the Debtor s Petition in Shah Alam, there was no disclosure of MIBB bankruptcy action, which Petition if it had been filed in MIBB bankruptcy action, would have been apparent. 35. It is under these circumstances the change of Debtor s address is material and was an attempt to justify filing the Petition in Shah Alam. Although Debtor in paragraph 9 of affidavit in reply dated stated he has been residing in the Tropicana address for more than a year with his son due to old age and safety, in an affidavit dated (after his Debtor s Petition) filed in Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of judgment the address given was that of a residence in KL (exhibit MIBB- 8 ). In affidavits dated -- (MBB s bankruptcy action) and (MIBB s bankruptcy action) it was a KL address (exhibits MIBB-3 and MIBB-5 ). 36. Taken together these were non disclosure of material facts and an abuse of process. (iii) Failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to Director General of Insolvency (DGI) 37. In Sarawathy s supplemental affidavit in enclosure 165 it has been set out the circumstances (in paragraph 4) leading to the failure to disclose and surrender cause papers to DGI. DGI issued a notice to Debtor on (DGI s notice, exhibit MIBB-A ) requiring him to surrender all 13
14 his assets and books of affairs to DGI followed by a Court order made on (exhibit MIBB-A ) for Debtor to comply with DGI s notice. The Court order came about when Applicants brought the lack of disclosure in compliance with DGI s notice to the Court s attention. Upon Applicants letter to DGI as to whether Debtor had complied with the Court order, Applicants received inter alia a copy of Debtor s letter dated and copies of various documents (exhibit MIBB-B ). 38. In paragraph 4(f) are listed suits/appeals not listed in Debtor s letter dated In Debtor s 7 th affidavit in reply in enclosure 178 he stated in paragraph 9- (a) the case in paragraph 4(f)(i), Federal Court Civil Application No /17, is a continuation from the Court of Appeal where the cause papers were served on DGI on ; (b) for the cases in paragraph 4(f)(ii) and (iii), Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(NcVc) (A)-947/05/16 and KLHC 24NCC /14, leave for committal proceedings have been granted and DGI should have knowledge, (c) the case in paragraph 4(f)(iv), KLHC 29NCC /, has been served to DGI on ; and (d) DGI in its letter has confirmed knowledge of the case in paragraph 4 (f)(v), Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(IM)(NcVc)-976/06/16. Debtor further stated if DGI had requested him to forward the cause papers he would have given his utmost cooperation. 14
15 39. DGI notice and the Court order was for Debtor to serve relevant cause papers and it is clear cause papers for cases Federal Court Civil Application no /14, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(NcVc)(A)-947/05/16, KLHC 24NCC /14 and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal no W-02(IM)(NcVc)-976/06/ were not served. Knowledge of proceedings does not negate the requirement to comply. (iv) Flaw in RO 40. RO (exhibit MIBB-11 ) was worded as follows- ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa- (a) Satu Perintah Penerimaan dimasukkan terhadap Penghutag di atas; (b) Satu perintah penggantungan bagi sebarang tindakan, perlaksanaan atau sebarang prosess Undang-undang yang lain selain dari tindakan di sini terhadap harta-harta Penghutang dan/atau Penghutang dibenarkan sehingga satu komposisi skim penyusunn semula dipertimbangkan oleh Mesyuarat Pertama Pemiutang-Pemiutang menurut seksyen dan seksyen 18 Akta Kebankrapan The words of RO has effectively restrained all actions against not only the assets of the Debtor but also against the Debtor himself, which is not what is envisaged to be achieved by a receiving order granted under section 8 BA Section 8(1) BA provides that- (1) On the making of a receiving order the Director General of Insolvency shall be thereby constituted received of the property of the debtor, and thereafter, except as directed by this Act, no creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy shall have any remedy against the property or person of the debtor in respect of the debt, or shall proceed with or commence any action or other legal
16 proceeding in respect of such debt unless with the leave of the court and on such terms as the court may impose Section 4 BA states that RO is for the protection of the estate of Debtor. 44. Section 8 BA provides for the protection of the property or person of the debtor in respect of his debt and not for the protection of person of the debtor against any actions or proceedings. By the wide wordings of RO, the Debtor obtained an order for a stay of all actions or legal proceedings against himself. This cannot be the intention envisaged under section 8 BA. By obtaining such an order for stay, the Debtor has managed to restrain all actions commenced by the Applicants against him and not only actions in respect of a debt. 45. As the terms of RO have gone beyond the ambit of section 8(1) BA it can be set aside. So for instance in Mohd Roslan bin Mohd Noor dan lain lwn. Saidina Khatijah Zaharah Kairulnisak bt Hj Mohd Noor [] MLJ 307 the order made by the Senior Assistant Registrar was set aside as the order contradicted with the provisions of law. Contempt 46. Applicants have also sought a prayer that Debtor be declared guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with section 16 BA and be punished in such manner as the Court deems fit. 16
17 47. Section 16(1) BA which has been set out earlier essentially mandates Debtor to submit to DGI a statement of affairs in the prescribed form showing inter alia particulars of Debtor s assets. provides as follows- Section 16(3) then 16.(3) If the debtor failed without reasonable excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, to comply with the requirements of his section he shall be guilty of a contempt of court and may be punished accordingly, and the court may on the application of the Director General of Insolvency or of any creditor adjudge him bankrupt It is thus an offence punishable under section 16(3) for failing to comply with section In the earlier paragraphs this Court found there to be non compliance of section 16(1) BA in Debtor not disclosing his assets in Malaysia and Australia It was submitted by Debtor s counsel the application for contempt was flawed as Applicants have not applied for leave under Order 52 Rules of Court 12. This was because although BA provides contempt as a punishable offence, BA and BR are silent on the rule governing contempt. Where BA and BR are silent Rule 276 BR referred to earlier provides that Rules of the High Court shall apply and this would be Order 52 Rules of Court 12 for which Rule 3 requires leave of the Court. Reliance was placed on Dato Abdullah Hishan Haji Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukla (No.4) [01] 5 CLJ 400 where the court held that- Notwithstanding, the fact that there are no rules governing contempt proceedings, r.276 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969 stipulates that in the event of lacunae, the Rules of the High Court shall apply. Therefore, the 17
18 Plaintiff was well within his right to have proceeded under O.52 of the Rules of the High Court In this regard this application for committal was filed in the bankruptcy court pursuant to the express provision of section 16(3) BA which permits the bankruptcy court to hold the Debtor in contempt. There is no requirement for prior leave to be obtained under BR by the Applicants to proceed with the contempt proceedings against the Debtor. Dato Abdullah Hishan (supra) can be distinguished. There the dispute was whether only the DGI, and not a creditor may proceed with contempt proceedings against the bankrupt. The court held that the plaintiff creditor may proceed with contempt proceedings against the bankrupt. The issue of Order 52 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 arose only because the creditor had instituted proceedings under Order 52. The court held that the creditor may do so. The court did not rule that prior leave must be obtained for a creditor to proceed with an application for committal order to be made against a debtor under BA, which is the case here. 52. As to the reasonable excuse advanced by Debtor on his non compliance, as stated earlier, this has not been accepted by the Court. As to Debtor s readiness to amend the Statement of Affairs to include the omission this has yet to be done, and in any event does not excuse the non compliance. 18
19 Conclusion 53. For all the above reasons the application by Applicants to set aside RO and declare Debtor guilty of contempt for non compliance of section 16 BA was allowed. 5 Dated: 13 July 17 See Mee Chun Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Peguam cara JC / Applicant Ms Yoong Sin Min, Ms Ng Hooi Huang and Ms Michelle Wong Tetuan Shook Lin & Bok, Kuala Lumpur Peguam cara JD / Respondent Mr Malik Imtiaz, Mr Surendra Ananth and Mr Afdhlani Jusoh Tetuan Faizul Nasir & Associates, Kuala Lumpur 30 19
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 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 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 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 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 informationBANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) ACT
Bankruptcy (Amendment) 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) ACT 2017 2 Laws of Malaysia Date of Royal Assent...... 10 May 2017 Date of publication in the Gazette......... 18 May 2017 Publisher s Copyright
More 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 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 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 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02-2133-2011 ANTARA BOUNTY DYNAMICS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai MEDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) PERAYU DAN CHOW TAT MING DAN 175
More informationBankruptcy Act Chapter B2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria Arrangement of Rules. Part I
Bankruptcy Act Chapter B2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 Arrangement of Rules Part I Proceedings from Act of Bankruptcy to discharge Acts of Bankruptcy 1. Acts of bankruptcy. 2. Bankruptcy notices.
More information2013 EDITION. Bankruptcy Act. [Editor s NOTE: This Act has been amended by Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act No 109 of 1992]
Bankruptcy Act [Editor s NOTE: This Act has been amended Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act No 109 of 1992] Arrangement of Rules Part I: Proceedings from Act of Bankruptcy to discharge Acts of Bankruptcy 1. Acts
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 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 informationBankruptcy (Amendment) 1 A BILL. i n t i t u l e d. An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act [ ]
Bankruptcy (Amendment) 1 A BILL i n t i t u l e d An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1967. [ ] ENACTED by the Parliament of Malaysia as follows: Short title and commencement 1. (1) This Act may be cited
More informationMALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD ( MRCB OR THE COMPANY )
MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD ( MRCB OR THE COMPANY ) MANAGEMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN KWASA UTAMA SDN BHD ( KUSB ) AND MRCB FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MRCB AS THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR IN CONNECTION WITH
More 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN [CIVIL SUIT NO: ] BETWEEN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN [CIVIL SUIT NO: 22-510-2003] BETWEEN A & AT ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS SDN BHD... PLAINTIFF AND PERNEC CORPORATION BHD (NO SYARIKAT:
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 informationBANKRUPTCY ACT (CHAPTER 20)
BANKRUPTCY ACT (CHAPTER 20) Act 15 of 1995 1996REVISED EDITION Cap. 20 2000 REVISEDEDITION Cap. 20 37 of 1999 42 of 1999 S 380/97 S 126/99 S 301/99 37 of 2001 38 of 2002 An Act relating to the law of bankruptcy
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 information2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject (a) " creditor" includes a decree- holder;
THE PRESIDENCY- TOWNS INSOLVENCY ACT, 1909 ACT NO. 3 OF 1909 1 [ 12th March, 1909.] An Act to amend the Law of Insolvency in the Presidency- Towns 2 WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law relating to
More informationPARLIAMENT (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACT)
PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA PARLIAMENT (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACT) AN ACT TO DECLARE AND DEFINE THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS OF PARLIAMENT AND OF THE MEMBERS THEREOF;
More information156 INDUSTRIAL CO-ORDINATION ACT
LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 156 INDUSTRIAL CO-ORDINATION ACT 1975 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVISION
More informationLAWS OF FIJI CHAPTER 48 BANKRUPTCY
LAWS OF FIJI CHAPTER 48 BANKRUPTCY Cap. 48 Ed. 1978 Bankruptcy 3 CHAPTER 48 BANKRUPTCY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART I-PRELIMINARY PART II-PROCEEDINGS FROM ACT
More informationUnannotated Statutes of Malaysia - Principal Acts/BANKRUPTCY ACT 1967 Act 360/BANKRUPTCY ACT 1967 ACT 360
Page 1 1967 ACT 360 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2007 First enacted............... 1967 (Act 55 of 1967) Revised.................. 1988 (Act 360 w.e.f. 31 December 1988) Date of coming
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 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 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 informationCHAPTER 48 BANKRUPTCY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY RECEIVING ORDER
CHAPTER 48 BANKRUPTCY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Acts of bankruptcy. 4. Bankruptcy notices. PART II PROCEEDINGS FROM ACT OF BANKRUPTCY TO DISCHARGE
More informationENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENTS IN MALAYSIA
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL CASE JUDGMENTS IN MALAYSIA INTRODUCTION The Malaysian Civil Judicial system is based on common law, much of which has been codified by statute. The hierarchy of courts in Malaysia
More informationDALAM 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24FC /2014 BETWEEN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD AND
IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (CIVIL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24FC-1312-10/2014 BETWEEN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PLAINTIFF AND AMROU BAKOUR DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT ENCLOSURE
More information549 STANDARDS OF MALAYSIA ACT
Standards of Malaysia 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 549 STANDARDS OF MALAYSIA ACT 1996 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE
More informationVIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, Arrangement of Sections
NO. 8 of 1990 VIRGIN ISLANDS The Company Management Act, 1990 Arrangement of Sections Sections 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART 1 Preliminary PART II Licences 3. Requirement of licence. 4. Application
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 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 informationPART 2 MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS
5. Application of Part 2 This Part applies PART 2 MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS to matrimonial proceedings, and for specifying the procedure for complying with the requirements of section 25 of the Act (restriction
More informationCorporate Rescue Mechanism & Winding Up: A New Dimension
Corporate Rescue Mechanism & Winding Up: A New Dimension DR HARIATI MANSOR 3 April 2017 Fakulti Undang-Undang UiTM Shah Alam Dr Hariati Mansor 1 Winding up Liquidation /winding up of a company is the process
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
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 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 informationLAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES REVISED EDITION 1990 CHAPTER 3 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) ACT
House of Assembly (Privileges, [ CAP. 3 1 LAWS OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES REVISED EDITION 1990 CHAPTER 3 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) ACT Act 14 of 1966 amended by *The
More informationChapter 4 Creditors Voluntary Winding Up Application of Chapter. MKD/096/AC#
[PART 11 WINDING UP Chapter 1 Preliminary and Interpretation 549. Interpretation (Part 11). 550. Restriction of this Part. 551. Modes of winding up - general statement as to position under Act. 552. Types
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 informationState Reporting Bureau
[2.003] 0 SC 056 State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must
More informationTHIS AGREEMENT is made the day and year stated in Section 1 of the First Schedule hereto. BETWEEN AND
THIS AGREEMENT is made the day and year stated in Section 1 of the First Schedule hereto. BETWEEN The party whose name and particulars as stated in Section 2 of the First Schedule hereto as the Vendor
More informationTOP GLOVE CORPORATION BHD (Company No X) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY HELD AT TG GRAND BALLROOM 1, LEVEL 9, TOP GLOVE TOWER, 16, PERSIARAN SETIA DAGANG, SETIA ALAM, SEKSYEN U13, 40170 SHAH ALAM,
More informationTHE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007
Small Claims Courts Bill, 2007 Section THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT BILL, 2007 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART 1 - PRELIMINARY 1 - Short title and commencement 2 - Purpose 3 - Interpretation PART II ESTABLISHMENT
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 informationLand Conservation LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 385 LAND CONSERVATION ACT 1960
Land Conservation 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 385 LAND CONSERVATION ACT 1960 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY
More informationCHAPTER 6:04 DEBTORS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Debtors 3 CHAPTER 6:04 DEBTORS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. (1) Abolition of imprisonment for debt. (2) Exceptions. 4. Committal of debtor to prison in 5. Saving
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID BICKFORD ST LUCIA ESTATES LIMITED
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO:864/99 BETWEEN: DAVID BICKFORD Petitioner VS ST LUCIA ESTATES LIMITED Respondent Appearance Mr. K. Monplaisir Q.C. with Mr. M. Maraj for Petitioner Mr.
More informationNo. 5 of 1992 VIRGIN ISLANDS DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT, 1992
No. 5 of 1992 VIRGIN ISLANDS DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT, 1992 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Meaning of "corresponding law". 4. Provisions as
More informationP 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 informationChapter 3. Powers and duties of Receivers
Chapter 3 Powers and duties of Receivers 42938. Powers of receiver. 4309. Power of receiver and certain others to apply to court for directions and receiver s liability on contracts. 43140. Duty of receiver
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101. In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101 Date: 20180426 Docket: Hfx. No. 472745 Registry: Halifax In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c. B-3, as amended
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 informationStatutory 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent
More informationBERMUDA BERMUDA PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY ACT : 29
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA BERMUDA PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2011 2011 : 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Citation Interpretation TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 ESTABLISHMENT
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 informationLAA 3064 MOOT/MOCK AND PLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
LAA 3064 MOOT/MOCK AND PLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CONTENTS Introduction Definition Conviction of Criminal Offence Breach of duty with regards to undertaking Dishonest and fraudulent conduct in the
More 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 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 informationBANKRUPTCY ORDINANCE*
Chapter: 6 BANKRUPTCY ORDINANCE Gazette Number Version Date To amend the law relating to bankruptcy. (Originally 10 of 1931 (Cap 6, 1950 Ed.)) Long title 30/06/1997 BANKRUPTCY ORDINANCE* [1 January 1932]
More informationCHAPTER 70 PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS)
Commencement: 31 May 1971 CHAPTER 70 PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) QR 9 of 1971 QR 3 of 1978 Act 10 of 1988 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PROVISIONS
More informationAttestation 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 informationAustralia. 1. Fair. Regulatory framework
Australia 1. Fair Regulatory framework Legislative branch: The Requirements of the House of Representatives: Registration of Members Interests adopted by the House of Representatives on 9 October 1984
More informationLeadership Code (Further Provisions) Act 1999
Leadership Code (Further Provisions) Act 1999 SOLOMON ISLANDS THE LEADERSHIP CODE (FURTHER PROVISIONS) ACT 1999 (NO. 1 OF 1999) Passed by the National Parliament this twentieth day of 1999. Assented to
More informationInternational Construction & Civil Engineering Sdn Bhd v Jittra Sdn Bhd and 2 Others
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA; Zaleha Yusof, JCA; Yeoh Wee Siam, JCA International Construction & Civil Engineering Sdn Bhd v Jittra Sdn Bhd and 2 Others Citation:
More informationELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 15
C H A P T E R 15 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 15 UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT (1914) Part I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Name of Act This act may be cited as Uniform Partnership Act. 2. Definition of Terms
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 informationConstruction Industry Payment and Adjudication 1. construction industry payment and adjudication act 2012
Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication 1 laws OF MALAYSIA construction industry payment and adjudication act 2012 2 Laws of Malaysia Date of Royal Assent...... 18 June 2012 Date of publication
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 informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationKENYA GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT
SPECIAL ISSUE Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 159 (Acts No. 18) REPUBLIC OF KENYA KENYA GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT ACTS, 2015 NAIROBI, 15th September, 2015 CONTENT Act PAGE The Insolvency Act, 2015...1023 PRINTED
More informationSELANGOR BAR COMMITTEE S NOTES ON CHANGES TO THE RULES OF COURT 2012
SELANGOR BAR COMMITTEE S NOTES ON CHANGES TO THE RULES OF COURT 2012 INTRODUCTION 1. These notes have been prepared to assist members and pupils take note of the changes to Rules. These notes highlight
More informationSingapore: Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act
The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of
More informationMUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT CHAPTER 11:24 Act 39 of 1997 Amended by 7 of 2001 14 of 2004 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 76.. 1/ L.R.O. 2 Ch. 11:24 Mutual
More informationWinding up by court 568. Application of Chapter 569. Circumstances in which company may be wound up by the court
PART 11 WINDING UP CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and interpretation 559. Interpretation (Part 11) 560. Restriction of this Part 561. Modes of winding up general statement as to position under Act 562. Types of
More informationEXCHANGE CONTROL ACT 1953
017e.fm Page 1 Monday, March 27, 2006 1:46 PM LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 17 EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT 1953 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION,
More informationNOTICE TO BANKRUPT (Sections 158, 159, 67.(1), 178, 198, 199, 200)
NOTICE TO BANKRUPT (Sections 158, 159, 67.(1), 178, 198, 199, 200) You are hereby notified of the duties imposed upon you by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and certain other features of this Act that
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 informationATLAN HOLDINGS BHD. ( W) (Incorporated in Malaysia)
Extract of Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Annual General Meeting of the Company held at the Lily Room, 1st Floor, The Zon All Suites Residences On The Park, 161-D, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday,
More informationTHE ARBITRATION ACT (X OF 1940) An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Arbitration. CHAPTER 1
THE ARBITRATION ACT (X OF 1940) [11th March, 1940] An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Arbitration. Preamble : Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to Arbitration
More informationNational Seminar on Secretarial Audit
National Seminar on Secretarial Audit 27 th March 2015 Presentation on Main Principles of Audit in relation to Secretarial Audit By: S. C. Vasudeva, Partner S. C. Vasudeva & Co. Chartered Accountants 1
More informationLEGISLATIVE HOUSES (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ACT
LEGISLATIVE HOUSES (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. Freedom of speech 3. Immunity from proceedings. Evidence before committees 4. Power of committee
More information275 GOVERNMENT FUNDING ACT
Government Funding 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 275 GOVERNMENT FUNDING ACT 1983 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY
More informationThis document has been provided by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).
This document has been provided by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). ICNL is the leading source for information on the legal environment for civil society and public participation.
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.
More informationSAMOA TRUSTEE COMPANIES ACT (as amended, 2009) Arrangement of Provisions. PART I - Preliminary and Registration of Trustee Companies
SAMOA TRUSTEE COMPANIES ACT 1987 (as amended, 2009) Arrangement of Provisions PART I - Preliminary and Registration of Trustee Companies 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Application
More informationSINGAPORE COMPANIES ACT (Cap. 50) PART VIII RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS
SINGAPORE COMPANIES ACT (Cap. 50) PART VIII RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS Disqualification for appointment as receiver 217. (1) The following shall not be qualified to be appointed and shall not act as receiver
More informationBATU KAWAN BERHAD (6292-U) (Incorporated In Malaysia)
THIS CIRCULAR IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT AS TO THE ACTION YOU SHOULD TAKE, YOU SHOULD CONSULT YOUR STOCKBROKER, BANK MANAGER, SOLICITOR, ACCOUNTANT OR OTHER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 12189/2014 ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant And RUTH SUSAN HAREMZA Respondent
More informationRULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
RULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS DEFINITIONS 60.01 In Rules 60.02 to 60.19, (a) "creditor" means a person who is entitled to enforce an order for the payment or recovery of money; (b) "debtor" means a person
More information