BETWEEN BUDIMAN BIN CHE MAMAT... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence)
|
|
- Luke Carr
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S-62-12/2016 (DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN GUA MUSANG, NO: /2016) BETWEEN BUDIMAN BIN CHE MAMAT... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence) A. BACKGROUND [1] The Appellant/Accused was charged at the court below for having in his custody and control in a public place, a dangerous weapon that was a 50 cm sword, without lawful excuse or authority, an offence under section 7(1) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 (Act 357) punishable under the same section. He was also charged for a second offence, that was failure to produce his identity card to the police upon request, an offence under section 25(1)(n) AKTA PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 1990, punishable under the same act. 1
2 [2] The Appellant/Accused was represented at the court below. After the charge was read and explained to him, the Appellant/Accused pleaded guilty to both charges. After being satisfied that the Appellant/Accused understood the nature and consequences of his plea of guilty, and after being satisfied that the plea given was unequivocal and unqualified, and that the facts of the case to which the Accused admitted had revealed that the Appellant/Accused committed the offence, the Session s Judge convicted him and sentenced him to a minimum of 5 years imprisonment for the first charge and 1 year imprisonment respectively for the second charge. [3] The learned judge ordered the 2 sentences to run concurrently. However the learned judge rejected the request to have these sentences to run concurrently with an earlier sentence under Section 326 of the Penal Code (Case Mahkamah Sesyen Gua Musang no /2016)/Rayuan Jenayah no. 42S-61-12/2016). Instead the learned judge ordered these sentences to be served, upon the Accused/Appellant completing that earlier sentence. Put it in another fashion, the sentences are to run consecutively. [4] Dissatisfied, the Appellant/Accused filed an appeal on sentence on the above decision. After hearing submissions by both parties, this court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial judge. [5] Dissatisfied with the decision, the Accused/Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. These are the grounds for the decision of this court. 2
3 B. THE CHARGE First Charge Bahawa kamu pada jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang bertempat di Kawasan Belukar Kampung Sungai Kepar, Daerah Gua Musang, dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati dalam milikan dan kawalan kamu sebilah pedang bersarung besi warna hitam ukuran panjang lebih kurang 50 cm dipegang di tangan kanan kamu tanpa sebarang kebenaran yang sah. Oleh yang dermiklan kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 7(1) Akta Bahan-Bahan Kakisan Dan Letupan Dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 (Akta 357). Second Charge Bahawa kamu pada jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang bertempat di Kawasan Belukar Kampung Sungai Kepar, Daerah Gua Musang, dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati gagal mengemukakan kad pengenalan diri kepada pihak polis. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 25(1)(n) Akta Pendaftaran Negara C. FACTS OF THE CASE [6] The brief facts of the case which was tendered by the Prosecution and marked as P 1 are reproduced in verbatim as follows: 3
4 Pada tarikh 02/11/2016 jam lebih kurang 2.00 petang sepasukan anggota JSJ IPD Gua Musang telah membuat serbuan dan tahan (1)(l)(m) di kawasan belukar di Kampung Sungai Kepar Gua Musang dan menjumpai sebatang besi warna hitam yang dipegang di tangan kanan dan hasil pemeriksaan dapati besi tersebut adalah sebilah pedang bersarung ukuran lebih kurang 50 cm dan semasa tangkapan dibuat penama juga gagal mengemukan sebarang dokumen diri sebagaimana Gua Musang rpt: /16. Hasil soal siasat penama: Budiman bin Che Mamat no. Kpt: Tempat kejadian telah dilawati, gambar tempat kejadian telah dirakam, hasil soal siasat yang dijalankan tertuduh menyatakan sebilah pedang bersarung besi hitam adalah kepunyaannya dan juga menyatakan kad pengenalannya telah hilang hampir tempoh 1 tahun yang lalu. Hasil siasatan dan keterangan serta bukti-bukti yang ada, tertuduh telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh di hukum di bawah seksyen 7 (1) Akta Bahan-bahan Kakisan Letupan dan Senjata Berbahaya 1958 dan Seksyen 25 (1) (n) Akta Pendaftaran Negara D. THE LAW ON APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE [7] The law on appeal against sentence is trite, that the appellate court should be slow to interfere or disturb with the sentence passed by the court below unless it is manifestly wrong or unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances of the case. In fact in the case of Adam Atan V PP (2009) 1 CLJ 33, the Court of Appeal in an appeal against sentence said, the initial function of the appeal court is one of review only. The mere fact that 4
5 another court might pass a different sentence provides no reason for the appellate court to interfere if the trial court applies the correct principles of sentencing. [8] Although there is a plethora of authorities on this point, suffice for this Court to apply the principles of sentencing as enunciated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in PP v Ling Leh Hoe (2015) 4 CLJ 869 viz: [14] The appellate court can and will interfere in the sentence imposed by the lower court if it is satisfied that any of the following four grounds are made out: (a)the sentencing judge had made a wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for the sentence; (b)there had been an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material facts placed before him; (c) The sentence was wrong in principle; or (d)the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. (See R v. Ball [1951] 35 Cr App. R 164; Loo Weng Fatt v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR 313 at para [65]; Public Prosecutor v. UI [2008] 4 SLR (R) 500). [9] To generalize it, whilst an appellate court should be slow in interfering the sentence imposed by the trial court in the exercise of their discretion as sentencing is not a science of mathematical application, an appellate court can interfere on the sentence if it is wrong in principle or the sentence 5
6 imposed is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate. In fact the court of Criminal Appeal in Dookes v PP (2010) SCJ 71 said: However, even if there is nothing wrong with the principle, the sentence may be increased by the appellate court if it is unduly lenient. E. THE FINDING OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE ON SENTENCE [10] The learned judge in his grounds of judgment had ordered that both the sentences to run concurrently as inter alia, it was committed in one transaction. In arriving at his decision the learned judge had taken all the relevant factors into consideration such as the surrounding facts of the case, the mitigation by the defence counsel and the submission by the Prosecution to enhance the sentence. [11] Regarding the first offence of having in his custody and control of an offensive weapon, the learned judge considered that this is a serious offence, reflected by the recent amendment where the minimum sentence of 2 years imprisonment was raised to 5 years. [12] For the second offence of failure to produce his identity card upon request by the policeman, the learned judge had considered the lackadaisical attitude of the accused in making no attempts to replace his old identity card which was lost about a year ago as claimed. 6
7 [13] The learned judge also ordered that these 2 sentences to run consecutively after serving the first sentence of which he was earlier charged and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, under section 326 of the Penal Code as he opined that the present offences were not committed in the same transaction with the earlier offence and also they were separate and distinct offences. F. SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES [14] The learned counsel in her written submission submitted primarily on the sentences for all the 3 offences to run concurrently. Towards that end she submitted that the learned trial judge was wrong in not considering that these 2 sentences and the earlier sentence (under section 326 of the Penal Code) should run concurrently and not consecutively to each other. [15] This was because, according to the learned counsel, the weapon used in the commission of the offence of grievous hurt under section 326 of the Penal Code apparently was the same weapon. Hence it merited a consideration that all the 3 offences should run concurrently. [16] Hence the sole issue before this court for consideration was primarily on whether the sentences for all the 3 offences should run concurrently or consecutively to each other. [17] For easy reference, the Accused/Respondent was earlier charged for an offence of causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon, an offence punishable under section 326 of the Penal Code (Case Mahkamah Sesyen 7
8 Gua Musang no: /2016/rayuan Jenayah no: 42S-61-12/2016). The charge reads as follows: Bahawa kamu pada jam Iebih kurang 9.00 pagi bertempat di kawasan pembinaan Ladang Chin Teck, di dalam Daerah Gua Musang, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati dengan sengaja menyebabkan cedera parah iaitu patah kedua-dua belah tangan dan telinga hampir putus ke atas penama Wan Azmi Bin Wan Hasasan KPT: dengan cara memukul dengan menggunakan kayu dan besi kuku kambing. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 326 Kanun Keseksaan. [18] It was evidently clear that the dangerous instrument used was besi kuku kambing which is a weapon with the tip resembling like a claw or nails. However the instrument used in the case before this court was sebilah pedang which was a sword. Hence the learned counsel s submission that the instruments used in both the charges were the same was evidently wrong. Further the learned counsel s submission that the similarity in the weapon used could be a factor to be considered in determining whether the sentence to run concurrently or consecutively was also misconceived, as the following paragraphs would show. [19] It is to be noted that the exercise of the discretion of the court to determine the date of the commencement of the imprisonment is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In determining whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively, the courts 8
9 may use the one transaction principle or the totality principle [see Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman V PP (2004) 2 MLJ 534 (CA)]. [20] The one transaction principle applies where 2 or more offences were committed in the course of a single transaction, and the sentences for these offences should be concurrent. For there to be one transaction 4 elements should be present i.e. proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design [see Jayaraman V PP (1979) 2 MLJ 88; Amrita Lal Hazra V Emperor 42 cal 957]. [21] This can be well explained by referring to the case of PP v Prabu Veeramuthu (2009) 3 MLJ 470. On the facts, both the accused were charged with two charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The court ordered the sentences of 16 years imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently since the offences were committed in a single transaction. [22] Similarly in Annantan Subramaniam v PP (2007) 8 CLJ 1, the appellant pleaded guilty for the offence of rape under section 376 of the Penal Code and for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the same victim under section 326 of the Penal Code. On appeal, the court held that there was continuity of action since both offences were clearly connected by proximity of time and place. Thus the sentences should run concurrently. [23] In Ayob Abdul Jabar v PP, the accused was charged with an offence of resisting lawful apprehension under s 224 of the Penal Code and four charges of house-breaking under s 457 of the Penal Code. Here the 9
10 trial court ordered that the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively, a total of 17 years, and the accused had to pay a fine of RM12,000. On appeal to the High Court, Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J upheld the trial court's order and held that: Each distinct offence must be dealt with separately when imposing sentence. Offences in respect of infringements of the same section of a particular law must be regarded as distinct if the offences were committed against different persons or at different times or at different places. In the instant appeal, each of the five offences was committed at a different date, time, place and upon different persons. Thus, the offences committed are distinct offences and further, each offence is a principal offence. In these circumstances, the sentence imposed in respect of each offence cannot be concurrent with one another. [24] On the other hand, on the totality principle, the court will look at the total sum of the sentences imposed and whether in totality, they are excessive or harsh or having a crushing effect on the accused. If the total sentence is excessive then the court may order two or more sentences to run concurrently. The totality principle was applied in the Federal Court case in Sau Soo Kim v PP (1975) 2 MLJ 134. The accused in that case was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the first charge for attempt to commit murder by firing a revolver at a police party under section 307 of the Penal Code and 4 years each on two other unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition respectively under section 3 of the Arms Act 1960, i.e. a total of 18 years of imprisonment. 10
11 [25] The Federal Court held that the consecutive sentences of 18 years' imprisonment were too excessive and harsh and ordered the sentences for the second and third charges to run concurrently as they were offences which were similar in nature, thus making a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment - (see also Bachik Bin Abdul Rahman (2004) 2 MLJ 534). [26] Reference can be made on Emmins on Sentencing (2 nd Edition at page 151 which said: It is well established that sentences must have regard to the total length of sentence passed, particularly where consecutive sentences have been imposed, to ensure that the sentence properly reflects the overall seriousness of the behavior. [27] As there are no hard or fuss rule as to which principle to apply, the courts in Malaysia seems to apply a fusion of both principles. [28] Reverting back to the case at hand, in the light of the authorities and the laws averted to earlier, as the present offences were not committed on the same day, same time and at the same place with that of the earlier offence (Section 326 Penal Code) and that there was no continuity of action and purpose hence clearly the one transaction principle cannot apply. What is more, the earlier offence under section 326 of the Penal Code was totally distinct from that of the present offences. [29] Further, the total aggregate sentence of 13 years for all the sentences to run consecutively will not offend the totality principle too as 11
12 they are not excessive and would not have a crushing effect on the Accused. [30] The learned judge was correct when he said the following at pages 13 to 15 of Jilid 1 of the Appeal Record: Dalam menentukan hukuman kedua-dua kes patut berjalan berasingan atau secara serentak, saya berpandukan kepada prinsip rukun satu transaksi (one transaction rule) dan prinsip keseluruhan (totality principle). Rukun satu transaksi telah dijelaskan dalam banyak kes antaranya Amrita Lai Hazra v Emperor, Jayaraman & Ors v PP [1979] 2 MLJ 88, Chin Choy v PP [1955] 2 MLJ 36. Merujuk kepada kedua-dua kes ini, GM(T) /2016 dan GM(T) /2016 saya berpendapat ianya tidak tergolong kepada rukun satu transaksi di mana tidak terdapatnya empat unsur-unsur yang terdapat iaitu kedekatan masa, kedekatan tempat, kesinambungan tindakan dan kesinambungan tujuan atau reka bentuk. Kesimpulannya kedua-dua kes ini tiada kedekatan masa dan tempat kerana pertuduhan berkaitan dengan masa dan tempat yang berbeza dan juga perbezaan tujuan. Selanjutnya, saya berpendapat bahawa agregat hukuman juga tidak bertentangan dengan prinsip keseluruhan. Hukuman 13 tahun penjara kesemuanya bagi kedua-dua kes dan setelah remission, pada pendapat saya tidak akan membawa 'crushing effect' kepada tertuduh dalam kes ini. 12
13 [31] As such this court found that there was no reason for this court to disturb the finding as the learned judge did not commit any error. G. CONCLUSION [32] In the upshot, the appeal by the Appellant/Accused was dismissed and the decision of the learned Session s Judge affirmed. The sentences in this appeal are to run consecutively to the earlier sentence under section 326 of the Penal Code [kes Rayuan Jenayah No: 42S-61-12/2016/( /2016)]. Put it in another fashion, the Appellant/Accused will serve the existing prison sentences immediately upon completion of the 8 years imprisonment sentence imposed under section 326 of the Penal Code. Dated: 30 th November 2017 (DATO AHMAD BIN BACHE) Judicial Commissioner Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu Kelantan. 13
14 Pendakwa Raya/ Responden: TPR Puan Ainul Wardah binti Shahidan, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, Kota Bharu, Kelantan Peguamcara/Pemohon: Puan Ariyani Tetuan Zulfikri, Ariyani, Sh Mahanom & Co, Lot 1704, Batu 3 ½, Kg. Kenali, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. 14
MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT 10 11 12 13 (KOTA KINABALU SESSIONS COURT CRIMINAL
More informationBETWEEN KAMARUSHAM BIN ZAKARIA... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT. GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (On Sentence)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S-58-10/2016 (DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN PASIR MAS, KELANTAN NO. SPM(A)62-41-09/2016) BETWEEN KAMARUSHAM
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM DI DALAM KES BICARA JENAYAH NO: 45SO-21-10/2016 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND AMINUDIN BIN MUSA (I/C. NO: 760521-03-5519) GROUNDS
More 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 informationBETWEEN NIK ADIB BIN NIK MAT... APPELLANT AGAINST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT (ON SENTENCE)
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S(A)-39-7/16 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN [NO. SKB(A):61-11-09/16] BETWEEN NIK ADIB BIN NIK MAT...
More informationD.R. 48/96 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.
D.R. 48/96 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. [ ] MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDANG oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan
More informationD.R. 41/94. b er nama. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [ ]
D.R. 41/94 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b er nama Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah [ ] MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDAN oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan Agong
More informationPROPOSED DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J /2014 & J /2010 BETWEEN AND
PROPOSED DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: J-05-290-10/2014 & J-05-303-10/2010 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND YAP KIM WANG RESPONDENT [In the
More informationBETWEEN AND GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42S-43-8/2016 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN NO. SKB(A)62JS-138-8/2014) BETWEEN MOHD ASHRAF BIN IBRAHIM...
More informationUNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
ii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA iii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN
More informationVALID AND INVALID VARIATION OMISSION OF WORKS MOTHILAL A/L MUNIANDY
VALID AND INVALID VARIATION OMISSION OF WORKS MOTHILAL A/L MUNIANDY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science (Construction Contract
More informationDIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR ROSE HANIDA BINTI LONG LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PENGHAKIMAN
1 DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42K (115 124)-09/2016 ROSE HANIDA BINTI LONG LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PENGHAKIMAN Latarbelakang 1.
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAM DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO : NA /2017 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAM DARUL KHUSUS, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO : NA-44-29-08/2017 ANTARA AL FAITOURI BIN KAMAL PEMOHON DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN
More informationEQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
More informationPERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2016
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 14 Mac 2016 14 March 2016 P.U. (A) 60 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING
More informationD.R. 9/2013 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan.
D.R. 9/2013 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas 1. Akta ini bolehlah dinamakan Akta Kanun
More informationD.R. 13/2007 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kanun Keseksaan (Pindaan) 2006.
D.R. 13/2007 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kanun Keseksaan (Pindaan) 2006. DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa
More informationMOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Reports/2002/Volume 2/MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN - [2002] 2 MLJ 718-20 February 2002 [2002] 2 MLJ 718 MOK YONG KONG & ANOR v MOK YONG CHUAN COURT OF APPEAL (KUALA
More informationPendakwa Raya v Okwuhoa Edozie Stephen (NGA)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohtarudin Baki, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA; Yaacob Md Sam, JCA Pendakwa Raya v Okwuhoa Edozie Stephen (NGA) Citation: [2018] MYCA 111 Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah
More informationPERMOHONAN PEMBAHARUAN PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF PERMIT
Borang SPAN/P/2 JADUAL KEEMPAT [subkaedah 8(2)/subrule 8(2)] AKTA INDUSTRI PERKHIDMATAN AIR 2006 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 KAEDAH-KAEDAH INDUSTRI PERKHIDMATAN AIR (PERMIT) 2007 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : MT-42S-10-07/2016 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : MT-42S-10-07/2016 ANTARA 1. SYED MOHAMMAD YASER BIN SYED SOPIAN 2. SHAIFUL FAREZZUAN BIN RAMLI - PERAYU-PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA -
More informationSETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM MB UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM MB 091119 UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD: ARBITRATOR S MISCONDUCT LEE SEE KIM A project report submitted in partial fulfillment
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-01(NCVC)(W) /2016 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-01(NCVC)(W)-308-08/2016 ANTARA 1. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN DALAM NEGERI KOPERASI DAN KEPENGGUNAAN.. PERAYU-
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO J /2014 BETWEEN AND DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO J-09-27-01/2014 BETWEEN AZMI BIN OSMAN APPELLANT AND PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDENT DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO
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 informationPROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA PROFILE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS NUR JAZLIANNA BINTI SAMSUDIN A master s project report submitted
More 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 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 informationDIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: /2016
1 DIDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI JENAYAH 4 KUALA LUMPUR DIDALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO: 44-103-08/2016 MOHD FAHMI REDZA BIN MOHD ZARIN LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO:
More informationD.R. 18/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut:
Kanun Keseksaan (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 18/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Keseksaan. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan
More informationMohamad Ridzuan Bin Zamhor v Pendakwa Raya
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohtarudin Baki, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Mohamad Ridzuan Bin Zamhor v Pendakwa Raya Citation: [2018] MYCA 30 Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah
More informationPERINTAH UNIVERSITI DAN KOLEJ UNIVERSITI (PERLEMBAGAAN UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA) (PINDAAN) 2012
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 22 November 2012 22 November 2012 P.U. (A) 401 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERINTAH UNIVERSITI DAN KOLEJ UNIVERSITI (PERLEMBAGAAN UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA) (PINDAAN)
More informationCONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA CONSTRUING CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE LITERAL RULE CHAI SIAW HIONG A master s project report submitted in fulfillment
More informationHBT 203 Bahasa, Undang-Undang dan Penterjemahan II
No. Tempat Duduk UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Kedua Sidang Akademik 2003/2004 Februari/Mac 2004 HBT 203 Bahasa, Undang-Undang dan Penterjemahan II Masa : 3 jam ARAHAN KEPADA CALON: 1.
More informationUNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2000/2001
Angka Giliran... No. Tempat Duduk... UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2000/2001 September 2000 HBT203/3 - BAHASA, UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PENTERJEMAHAN II (Language, Law
More informationHBT Bahasa, Undang-Undang Dan Penterjemahan II (Language, Law and Translation II)
UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA Peperiksaan Semester Pertama Sidang Akademik 2001/2002 September 2001 HBT 203 - Bahasa, Undang-Undang Dan Penterjemahan II (Language, Law and Translation II) Masa : 2½ jam Sila
More informationVigneswaran A/L Rajamanikam v Public Prosecutor and Another Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohd Zawawi Salleh, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Vigneswaran A/L Rajamanikam v Public Prosecutor and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA 83 Suit
More informationSetem (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 14/2010 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Setem Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa
Setem (Pindaan) 1 D.R. 14/2010 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Setem 1949. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B /2014 (IRN)] ANTARA MORTEZA HOSSEINKHANI MOSTAFA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05-267-09/2014 (IRN)] ANTARA MORTEZA HOSSEINKHANI MOSTAFA PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN [DIDENGAR BERSEKALI DENGAN RAYUAN
More 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 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 informationKanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) (No. 2) 1 D.R. 17/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.
Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) (No. 2) 1 D.R. 17/2012 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(LB) /2015 (IND) BETWEEN AND AND
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-05(LB)-285-10/2015 (IND) BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND NI KOMANG YUNINGSIH RESPONDENT AND [IN THE
More 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 informationBETWEEN AND KHAFASLIZA BINTI SHAFII... RESPONDENT (IC.NO: ) GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42LB(A)-2-1/2016 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN NO. SKB(A)61-08-12/2013) BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR...
More informationD.R. 40/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kastam DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut:
D.R. 40/2006 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Akta Kastam 1967. [ ] DIPERBUAT oleh Parlimen Malaysia seperti yang berikut: Tajuk ringkas dan permulaan kuat kuasa 1. (1) Akta ini
More 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 informationCIRCULAR 2017/02. Tick ( ) where applicable. Please reply to any of Sara Worldwide Vacations Berhad Member Service Centres by 20 September 2017.
CIRCULAR 2017/02 Dear Valued Members, Warmest greetings from Easturia Vacation Club! 1. EASTURIA VACATION CLUB 6 th MEMBERS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING We are pleased to inform that the 6 th Members Annual
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22-156-2008 ANTARA NIK RUSDI BIN NIK SALLEH (Pemilik Tunggal Anura Hane)... PLAINTIF DAN SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING
More informationFEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
WARTAKERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 12 Oktober 2017 12 October 2017 P.U. (A) 314 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERINTAH KAWALAN HARGA DAN ANTIPENCATUTAN (PENANDAAN HARGA BARANGAN HARGA TERKAWAL) (NO. 6) 2017 PRICE
More informationPROSEDUR SIVIL: penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah - Tidak teratur - Menyalahi undang-undang - Bidangkuasa dan budibicara Mahkamah.
1 Boon Kee Holdings Sdn. Bhd. & Yang Lain LWN. Hotel Gallant Bhd. & Yang Lain Mahkamah Tinggi malaya, Pulau Pinang ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD SAMAN PEMULA NO. 24-988-89 13 JUN 1991 [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 516; [1991]
More informationILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD
374 ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD Industrial Court, Johor Mohd Azari Harun Award No: 515 of 2016 [Case No: 16/4-157/15] 27 April 2016 Dismissal: Misconduct due to poor performance Claimant dismissed
More 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 informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: T-01(NCVC)(W)-13-01/2017 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: T-01(NCVC)(W)-13-01/2017 ANTARA 1. KETUA POLIS DAERAH MARANG 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA... PERAYU-PERAYU DAN HASMALIZZA BINTI
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCVC-6-02/2017 ANTARA MESRA BUDI SDN.
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCVC-6-02/2017 ANTARA MESRA BUDI SDN. BHD PLAINTIF DAN LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN (FELDA) DEFENDAN
More 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 TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO /2017 ANTARA LAWAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO. 44-16-01/2017 ANTARA AZLI BIN TUAN KOB (NO. K/P : 670326-71-5309) PEMOHON LAWAN 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN
More informationDatuk Wira SM Faisal bin SM Nasimuddin Kamal lwn Datin Wira Emilia binti Hanafi & 4 lagi
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Unreported/2017/Volume/Datuk Wira SM Faisal bin SM Nasimuddin Kamal lwn Datin Wira Emilia binti Hanafi & 4 lagi - [2017] MLJU 1449-28 August 2017 [2017] MLJU 1449 Datuk Wira
More 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.D-05(S)-77-03/2015 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.D-05(S)-77-03/2015 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND MOHD FAZELAN BIN MD KHUZEH RESPONDENT (IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA
More informationD.R. 5/94 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. b e r n a m a. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Ordinan Perkapalan Saudagar 1952.
D.R. 5/94 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Ordinan Perkapalan Saudagar 1952. MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDANG oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO : K-05(M) /2015 BETWEEN AND HEARD TOGETHER WITH
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO : K-05(M)-338-12/2015 BETWEEN GOBINATHAN A/L VALAYLAM APPELLANT AND PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDENT HEARD TOGETHER WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL
More informationTAWARAN MENGISI JAWATAN SECRETARY GENERAL (SG) OF AFRO-ASIAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (AARDO)
Ketua Eksekutif FELCRA Berhad Wisma FELCRA Lot PT 4780, Jalan Rejang 50722 KUALA LUMPUR Lembaga Kemajuan Johor Tenggara (KEJORA) Ibu Pejabat KEJORA Jalan Dato' ann, Bandar Penawar 81900 Kota Tinggi,. JOHOR.
More informationPROSEDUR SIVIL Diputuskan: [1] [2] [3]
1 MALAYAN UNITED FINANCE BHD lwn. CHEUNG KONG PLANTATION SDN BHD & YANG LAIN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD H GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22(23)-341-86 24 JANUARI 2000 [2000] 2 CLJ 601 PROSEDUR
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BINDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: M-02(NCVC)(W) /2016
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA (BINDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: M-02(NCVC)(W)-1142-06/2016 1. SHA KANNAN 2. KAMBARAMAN SHANMUKHAM...PERAYU PERAYU DAN 1. ARUNACHALAM A/L VENKATACHALAM 2. VENKATACHALAM
More informationEMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM ABX CORPORATION SDN BHD ( V) & UTS GROUP OF COMPANIES
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Please read the application form carefully and complete it in BLOCK LETTERS. 2. Please return the completed application form together with one (1) recent passport size photograph and photocopy
More informationAzwan Bin Abd Rahaman v Pendakwa Raya and 2 Other Appeals
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohtarudin Baki, JCA; Zakaria Sam, JCA; Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, JCA Azwan Bin Abd Rahaman v Pendakwa Raya and 2 Other Appeals Citation: [2018] MYCA 118 Suit Number:
More information1. Overseas Union Bank Ltd. v. Chuah Ah Sai [1989] 1 LNS 2; [1989] 3 MLJ En. Paul Chin (Tetuan Gan Teik Chee & Ho) bagi pihak Plaintif.
1 LOO CHEONG FOO BERNIAGA SEBAGAI SHARIKAT LOO BROTHERS v. MOHAMED ABDUL KADER A/L SHAUKAT ALI HIGH COURT, PULAU PINANG ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD J SAMAN PEMULA NO. 24-1077-95 24 SEPTEMBER 1996 [1996] 1 LNS
More informationPossession - Exclusive possession. CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act Section 39(B)(1)(a) - Knowledge, how inferred
1 GUNALAN RAMACHANDRAN & ORS v. PP COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA DENIS ONG, JCA; ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; ABDUL AZIZ MOHAMAD, JCA CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: W-05-26-2002, W-05-27-2002 & W-05-28-2002 6 AUGUST 2004
More informationLee Bah Hin v Pendakwa Raya
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohtarudin Baki, JCA; Zakaria Sam, JCA; Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, JCA Lee Bah Hin v Pendakwa Raya Citation: [2018] MYCA 11 Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. P 05(M)
More information(RD/T&C/SDB/ENG/JUN2016) Page 1 of 5
Setem Hasil Revenue CIMB BANK BERHAD (13491-P) Stamp PERJANJIAN SEWA PETI SIMPANAN KESELAMATAN / AGREEMENT FOR HIRE OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOX No.: CIMB Bank Berhad (13491-P) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Bank
More informationPERATURAN-PERATURAN SKIM KEPENTINGAN 2017 INTEREST SCHEMES REGULATIONS 2017
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 26 Januari 2017 26 January 2017 P.U. (A) 36 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERATURAN-PERATURAN SKIM KEPENTINGAN 2017 INTEREST SCHEMES REGULATIONS 2017 DISIARKAN OLEH/ PUBLISHED BY
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCC-10-11/2016 ANTARA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-22-NCC-10-11/2016 ANTARA LEE WENG CHUN (NO.K/P: 650601-04-5269) PLAINTIF DAN 1. TAN KICK YONG (NO.K/P: 630204-01-5471)
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) MAHKAMAH RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B /2014 (RAYUAN JENAYAH SELANGOR NO. 45A TAHUN 2012)
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) MAHKAMAH RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05-381-12/2014 (RAYUAN JENAYAH SELANGOR NO. 45A-241-10 TAHUN 2012) ANTARA BARRY ABDOUL (W/N: GUINEA)... PERAYU (NO. P/P:
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 informationHeld (dismissing the application)
1 SIA CHENG SOON & ANOR v. TENGKU ISMAIL TENGKU IBRAHIM FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, CJ; ZAKI TUN AZMI, PCA; ARIFFIN ZAKARIA, FCJ CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 08-151-2007 (N) 15 MAY 2008 [2008]
More informationHeld: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA
1 DATO' SAMSUDIN ABU HASSAN v. ROBERT KOKSHOORN COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; ARIFFIN ZAKARIA, JCA; MOHD GHAZALI YUSOFF, JCA CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-387-02 28 MAY 2003 [2003] 3
More 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 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 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 informationBETWEEN MOHAMAD SHAKIR ZUFAYRI BIN ARIFFIN... APPELLANT (IC.NO: ) AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR... RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 42H-15-4/2016 (MAHKAMAH SESYEN KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN NO. SKB(A)62JS-144-09/2014) BETWEEN MOHAMAD SHAKIR ZUFAYRI
More informationKumanaan A/L Anthony Vincent v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohd Zawawi Salleh, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Kumanaan A/L Anthony Vincent v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA 177 Suit
More informationKhairul Bin Nordin v Pendakwa Raya
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Rohana Yusuf, JCA; Yaacob Md Sam, JCA; Rhodzariah Bujang, JCA Khairul Bin Nordin v Pendakwa Raya Citation: [2018] MYCA 97 Suit Number: Rayuan Jenayah No. M 06(M)
More informationHeld (dismissing the appeal): Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:
1 SEJAHRATUL DURSINA v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, FCJ; PAJAN SINGH GILL, FCJ; ALAUDDIN MOHD SHERIFF, FCJ; RICHARD MALANJUM, FCJ; AUGUSTINE PAUL, FCJ CRIMINAL
More informationPENYERTAAN SOSIAL Social Participation
Perarakan Hari Kebangsaan (National Day Parade) PENYERTAAN SOSIAL Social Participation Penyertaan sosial boleh meningkatkan kualiti hidup kerana ia mencerminkan komitmen dan kerelaan orang ramai untuk
More informationDATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Reports/2002/Volume 3/DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - [2002] 3 MLJ 193-10 July 2002 36 pages [2002] 3 MLJ 193 DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. A-06A(M)-4-03/2016 ANTARA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. A-06A(M)-4-03/2016 ANTARA MOHD. TAUFIK PETER BIN ABDULLAH PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA RESPONDEN (DALAM PERKARA MAHKAMAH
More informationWARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN
WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 1 Ogos 2012 P.U. (A) 232 KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH (PINDAAN) 2012 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ AKTA MAHKAMAH KEHAKIMAN 1964 AKTA KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH RENDAH 1955 KAEDAH-KAEDAH
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA [BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN] [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B /2014] ANTARA DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA [BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN] [RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05-133-05/2014] ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA PERAYU DAN MOHAMMAD JAVAD SABERI GHOLAMREZA RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah
More informationSelva Kumar A/L Supramaniam v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Mohd Zawawi Salleh, JCA; Ahmadi Asnawi, JCA; Kamardin Hashim, JCA Selva Kumar A/L Supramaniam v Pendakwa Raya and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA 75 Suit
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: MT(2)22-NCVC-44-03/2013 ANTARA MUSTOFA BIN HUSSIN PLAINTIF DAN
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: MT(2)22-NCVC-44-03/2013 ANTARA MUSTOFA BIN HUSSIN PLAINTIF DAN RAHIMAH BINTI MOHAMAD DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (Interlokutari
More informationTHE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007 Before : TUAN CHEW SOO HO - CHAIRMAN Venue : The Industrial Court
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018 BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN JAMHIRAH ALI CHAIRMAN VENUE : Industrial
More informationMajlis Perbandaran Seremban v Era Baru Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA Coram: Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, JCA; Abdul Rahman Sebli, JCA; Suraya Othman, JCA Majlis Perbandaran Seremban v Era Baru Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal Citation: [2018] MYCA
More information2. The following group of persons shall not be eligible to participate in this Contest:
MAYBELLINE MALAYSIA #MAYBELLINETOPSPENDER CONTEST Eligibility 1. This MAYBELLINE MALAYSIA #MAYBELLINETOPSPENDER CONTEST [ Contest ] is organised by L Oreal Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. [328418-A] [ the Organiser
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B /2016
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-164-09/2016 ANTARA ZI PRODUCTIONS SDN. BHD. (NO PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT:
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(12)/4-584/14 BETWEEN RADZI BIN MD. TAP AND FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES PLANTATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 1148 OF 2018
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(12)/4-584/14 BETWEEN RADZI BIN MD. TAP AND FELDA GLOBAL VENTURES PLANTATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 1148 OF 2018 Before Venue : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ
More informationPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (SGHU 4342)
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (SGHU 4342) WEEK 8-DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; REVOCATION, SAVINGS, TRANSITIONAL AND FEES SR DR. TAN LIAT CHOON 07-5530844 016-4975551 1 OUTLINE Disciplinary Proceedings Revocation,
More informationUNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA
Maktab Kerjasama (Perbadanan) (Pindaan) 1 UNDANG-UNDANG MALAYSIA Akta A1398 akta MAKTAB KERJASAMA (PERBADANAN) (PINDAAN) 2011 2 Undang-Undang Malaysia Akta A1398 Tarikh Perkenan Diraja...... 5 Ogos 2011
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-22-02/2016 ANTARA
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: BA-12B-22-02/2016 1. PARIS BIN ARIFF ANTARA 2. ASRINA BINTI MD MISDAR PERAYU-PERAYU DAN WAN YA BIN
More information