Reported Case

Abstract – An advocate and solicitor should be given the opportunity to be heard, pursuant to s. 103D(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, before the Disciplinary Board makes an order whether to impose a greater or lesser penalty or punishment than what is recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.

Legal Profession: Advocates and solicitors – Conflict of interest – Punishment/penalty – Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found advocate and solicitor guilty of having acted in conflict of interest – Recommended to Disciplinary Board (‘DB’) that advocate and solicitor be subjected to s. 103C(1)(c)(iii) of Legal Profession Act 1976 (‘LPA’) and be suspended from practice for two years – DB affirmed finding of liability but substituted punishment recommended by DC and ordered advocate and solicitor to pay fine and, in default, ss. 103D and 103(1) of LPA shall apply – Whether advocate and solicitor should be given opportunity to be heard before DB makes order likely to be adverse or if DB intends to impose greater or lesser penalty or punishment than that recommended by DC – Whether word ‘adverse’ in s. 103D(4) of LPA ought to be read in context of ‘greater or lesser’ under s. 103D(2) of LPA

Words & Phares: ‘adverse’ – Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 103D(4) – Whether word ‘adverse’ in s. 103D(4) of LPA ought to be read in context of ‘greater or lesser’ under s. 103D(2) of LPA

For the appellant - Robin Lim Fang Say; M/s Chan & Assocs

For the 1st respondent - Ahmad Yani Aminuddin & Mior Muhammad Fadhli; M/s NurulFadhli & Partners

For the 2nd respondent - Ranjan N Chandran & Vinitha Laksmy; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

[Editor’s note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see Syed Ahmad Imdadz Said Abas

v. Imej Muhibah Sdn Bhd; Majlis Peguam Malaysia (Intervener) [2021] 7 CLJ 125 (affirmed).]

Reported by Najib Tamby

From: 2023 8 MLJ

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Consent order — Setting aside — Whether there were vitiating factors— Whether consent order entered should be set aside — Whether consent order gave rise to undue preference — Whether terms of consent order uncertain — Whether consent order granted by competent court— Companies Act 2016 ss 409 & 426

Danny Ng (Danny & Co) for the plaintiff.

Nadiea Afiqah (Zul Rafique & Partners) for the first defendant.

Ranjan Chandran (with N Nandhini Devi) (Hakem Arabi & Associates) for the second to 141st defendants.

From: 2023 8 MLJ

Abstract – A liquidator is, first and foremost, an officer of the court and is under a duty to act in a fair, impartial and even-handed manner. A liquidator ought to exercise diligent circumspection as to avoid dragging a company through unnecessary legal hurdles and battles in full throttle.

For the applicant/respondent - Pamela Ephraim; M/s Ephraim & Assocs

For the petitioner - S Sathyananthan; M/s Sathya, Lee & Co

For the 1st intervener - Himahlini Ramalingam & Fong Ren Ming; M/s Himahlini & Loh

For the 2nd intervener - Khairun Nisya Khudri; M/s Param Sundram

For the 3rd intervener - Robert Low, Ahmad Shahrizal & Khong Mei-Yan; M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low

For the contributories - Dhanaraj, Shobah Veera & Joycelyn Keziah; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the Supporting Creditor Perunding Kos Bersatu Sdn Bhd - R Santhi; M/s Susielan & Assocs Reported by Lina E

From: 2022 10 CLJ

Abstract – The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 is a piece of social legislation intended to protect purchasers. This does not however mean that the court should disregard any settlement agreement that has been executed between the purchasers and developers to finalise the liquidated ascertained damages claimable by the former, as such agreements are not prohibited by law. In the final analysis, the court should not merely protect purchasers but should also prevent any attempt to re-open litigation that has been fully litigated or settled amicably.

For the plaintiff - Ranjan Chandran & Nandhini Devi Nagaindran; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Justin Voon, Alvin Lai & Lin Pei Sin Peg; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing

For the 3rd defendant - Tabian Tahir & Nabila Jamaludin; M/s Ho-Noecker & Pragasam

Reported by Lina E

From: 2022 4 CLJ

LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings – Right to be heard – Disciplinary Committee (‘DC’) found advocate and solicitor guilty of misconduct – DC recommended to Disciplinary Board (‘DB’) that advocate and solicitor be subjected to s. 103C(1)(c)(iii) of Legal Profession Act 1976 (‘LPA’) and be suspended from practice for two years – DB affirmed DC’s finding on liability but rejected DC’s recommended punishment – DB ordered advocate and solicitor to pay fine and, in default, s. 103(1) of LPA shall apply – Whether further order made in event of default of payment of fine – Whether finding of liability of DC, affirmed by DB, ought to be set aside – Whether advocate and solicitor ought to be given reasonable opportunity to be heard before DB makes order likely to be adverse against him

For the appellant - Ahmad Yani Aminuddin, Mior Muhammad Fadhli Mior Shaifuddin & Nurul Jannah Mohd Joaini; M/s Nurul Fadhli & Partners

For the respondent - Ranjan N Chandran; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the intervener - Robin Lim Fang Say; M/s Chan & Assocs

From: 2021 7 CLJ

Civil Procedure: Striking out— Application for— Application to strike out plaintiffs’ claim for outstanding liquidated damages under Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (‘HDA’) — Whether present action was unsustainable as representative or class action — Whether plaintiffs’ claim was unsustainable as plaintiffs were bound by settlement agreements earlier entered into with defendants — Whether estoppel operated to prevent defendants from complaining that plaintiffs’ claim was invalid and unsustainable for noncompliance with HDA— Rules of Court 2012, O 18 r 19

Counsel:
For the plaintiffs: Ranjan Chandran (Chandni Anantha Krishnan with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the 1st defendant: Ahmad Zulfadli Ibrahim (Aidil Khalid with him); M/s Amelda uad Abi & Aidil

For the 2nd defendant: Hashim Ibrahim; M/s Hasan Sabri & Hashim Nazri

From: 2020 6 MRLH 187

Civil Procedure: Damages — Exemplary damages — Whether any basis for grant of exemplary and aggravated damages — Whether facts case within any one of the accepted categories in Rookes v. Barnard for award of exemplary damages

Companies And Corporations: Liquidators — Negligence — Liquidators failing to obtain statement of affairs of wound-up company that would have revealed true nature of wound-up company’s assets and liabilities — Liquidators failing to submit preliminary report to winding-up court — Liquidators failing to establish Committee of Inspection — Whether liquidators unlawfully, wrongfully and negligently disposed of creditor’s properties thereby causing creditor loss — Whether liquidators liable in negligence

Companies And Corporations: Winding up — Liquidators — Creditors having beneficial ownership of debtor’s property under Settlement Agreements prior to winding up — Liquidators disposing off such property to third parties — Liquidators failing to obtain statement of affairs of wound-up company that would have revealed true nature of wound-up company’s assets and liabilities — Liquidators failing to submit preliminary report to winding-up court— Liquidators failing to establish Committee of Inspection — Whether liquidators unlawfully, wrongfully and negligently disposed of creditor’s properties thereby causing creditor loss

For the Civil Appeal No:W-02(NCVC)(W)-1972-09-2018

For the appellants: Ranjan N Chandran (Sabrina Shanthini Richards, Shobah Veera & Chandni Anantha Krishnan with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the respondents: HC Yap (HH Jee with him); M/s Tho, Hock & Chwan

For the Civil Appeal No:W-02(NCVC)(W)-1973-09-2018

For the appellants: Ranjan N Chandran (Sabrina Shanthini Richards, Shobah Veera & Chandni Anantha Krishnan with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the respondents: RavinWoodhull (OoiWei Neng & Goh Rhen-Jeat with him); M/s Mak, Ng & Lim

From: 2020 6 MLJ 89

Contract: Breach - Sale and purchase agreement Whether plaintiffs entitled to guaranteed rental return due to 1st defendant's breach of terms of sale and purchase agreement - Whether notice to repurchase subject property existed

Counsel: For the plaintiffs: Ranjan Chandran (Chandni Anantha Krishnan with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the 1st defendant: Pamela Ephraim; M/s Ephraim & Associates
For the 3rd defendant: Mohamad Faisal Jaafar; M/s Zahari Affendi & Partners For the
4th defendant: KL Lee; M/s TT Seng & Partners

From: 2020 2 MLRH 271

CONTRACT: Parties Intention - Employees residents of estate and former employees of owner of estate - Owner sold estate to company - Employment of employees terminated Company and owner of estate entered into settlement agreement - Settlement agreement contained clause for termination and lay-off benefits and for services rendered as former employees - Whether settlement agreement constructive trust - Whether employees stranger to settlement agreement

For the appellants - Ranjan Chandran, Nandhini Devi Nagaindren & Chandni Anantha Krishnan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates
For the 4th, 5th & 6th respondents - Intan Azlina Mazlan; M/s Khan & Mazlan
For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd respondents - Lim Jun Rui; M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva

[Editor's note: Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur, Suit No: WA-22NCC-418-12. 2016 (overruled).]

From: 2020 2CLJ 769

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction — High Court — Coordinate jurisdiction — Applicant applied for leave to proceed against company under liquidation — First High Court granted leave and orders sought — Applicant claimed against company at second High Court — Second High Court struck out claim as maker of affidavit in support for leave application failed to disclose he was undischarged bankrupt and set aside injunction and leave orders — Whether second High Court could strike out claim and set aside orders made by first High Court — Whether there were special circumstances warranting striking out and setting aside — Whether second High Court acted in excess of jurisdiction — Principles and exceptions stipulated in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd — Rules of Court 2012, 0. 33

For the appellant - Ranjan Chandran & Chandni Anantha Krishnan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates
For the 1st respondent - Pamela Ephraim; M/s Susielan & Associates
For the 2nd respondent - Cheah Sau Voon; M/s KH Wong, Chin & Cheah
For the 3rd respondent - Choy Kam Lee; M/s la Choy & Co

From: 2019 7CLJ 590

Company Law: Winding up – Liquidators – Removal of – Application to remove liquidator dismissed by High Court – Appeal against said decision – Whether trial judge erred in rejecting appellants as creditors and contributories of 1st respondent – Whether liquidator failed to effect proper service of notice to appellants – Whether liquidator unlawfully rejected Proof of Debt – Whether liquidator acted in the best interest of creditors and contributories of 1st respondent – Whether appellants had locus to question possession of subject property by liquidator -Whether any lack of impartiality in determining 1st respondent’s creditors – Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972, r 114.

For the appellants: Porres Royan (Roobini Stephanie with him); M/s Kumar Partnership
For the 1st Respondent: Ranjan Chandran (Pamela Ephraim & Nanthini Devi with him); M/s Sheela Devi & Co
For the 3rd respondent: Shobah Veera; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates
For 2nd respondent: So Chien Hao; M/s Ze Yi Kee

From 2019 6MLJ 96

CONTRACT: Assignment - Consent - Development agreement between Putrajaya Holdings and developer - Subsequent assignment of all obligations under development agreement by developer to plaintiff - Whether consent of Putrajaya Holdings material - Whether novation agreement between Putrajaya Holdings, developer and plaintiff override deed of assignment - Whether deed of assignment valid

(Appeal No: B-02(NCC)(A)-1679-08-2017) For the appellant - Abu Aziz; M/s Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil

For the respondent - Shobah Veera, Samarudin Rejab, Vinod Sharma & N Rajentharan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Assocs (Appeal No: B-02(IM)-191-01-2018)

For the appellant - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Khoo Suk Chyi, Amelda Md Din, K Selva Kumaran & Abu Haziq Abu Talib; M/s Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

For the respondent - Shobah Veera, Samarudin Rejab, Vinod Sharma & N Rajentharan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

From 2019 6 CLJ 607

TRUSTS: Duties - Fiduciary duty - Breach by trustees - Use of Trust funds by trustees for self-interest and self-dealing - Part of Trust fund used to purchase condominium units - Whether purchased units belonged to Trust – Whether benefits derived from condominium units must accrue to Trust - Whether physical possession of condominium units to be surrendered to Trust – Management agreement for leaseback of condominium units - Containing unfair terms, elements of fraud and self-enrichment - Whether management agreement null and void - Whether trustees breached fiduciary duty and duty of care - Whether liable to account for use of monies from Trust fund

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-220-02-2017)
For the appellant - Manjeet Singh Dhillon, Ranjan Chandran, Shopna Rani Malakar, TA Sivam, Shobah Veera & Dinesh Athinarayanan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the respondent - Gurdial Singh, Ragumaren N Gopal, Abraham Au, Kenneth Koh & Ragunath Kesavan; M/s G Ragumaren & Co - Kaman Rajanthiran; M/s Firdaus Azlina & Co

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-221-02-2017)
For the appellant - Bastian Vendargon, Gene Anand Vendargon, TA Sivam & Dinesh Athinarayanan; M/s Bastian Vendargon

For the respondent - Gurdial Singh, Ragumaren Gopal, Abraham Au, Kenneth Koh & Ragunath Kesavan; M/s G Ragumaren & Co., Kaman Rajanthiran; M/s Firdaus Azlina & Co

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-224-02-2017)
For the appellant - Vishwanathan, Nadesh Ganabaskaran & TA Sivam; Mis Malek, Paulian & Gan

For the respondent - Prakash Menon, Renu Zechariah & Ng Thiang Tuan; M/s Rosley Zechariah

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-225-02-2017)
For the appellant - Dinesh Athinarayanan, Sathyananthan Sinnappan & TA Sivam; M/s Dinesh & Co

For the respondent - Prakash Menon, Renu Zechariah, Cheryl Kwan & Ng Thiang Tuan; M/s Rosley Zechariah

From: 2019 3MLJ 1

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments - Grounds of judgment - Allegation that judge adopted extensive part of one party's submissions as his judgment - Whether judge considered all oral and documentary evidence thoroughly - Whether judge made own analysis of evidence and arrived at findings independently - Whether there was lack of judicial appreciation of facts and law - Whether adoption of one party's submission could be basis to impugn judgment - Whether judgment valid.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Appeal against - Grant of orders and declarations which altered, varied and / or amended reliefs sought – Whether inconsistent with primary prayers - Whether judge ought not to have granted varied reliefs.

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-219-02-2017) For the plaintiffs - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Ragumaren Gopal, Abraham Au Tian Hui, Kenneth Koh, Ragunath Kesavan; M/s G Ragumaren & Co & Rasley Zachariah

For the defendants - PM Nagarajan, TA Sivam, Vinoshni Narayanasamy; M/s Nagarajan Peri & Co

For the 26th respondent - R Karnan & V Gengeys Vijay

(Civil Appeal No: J-02{W)-220-02-2017) For the plaintiffs - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Ragumaren Gopal, Abraham Au Tian Hui, Kenneth Koh, Ragunath Kesavan, M/s G Ragumaren & Co & Rasley Zachariah

For the defendants - Ranjan Chandran, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, Shopna Rani Malakar, TA Sivam, Shobah Veera; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates For the 26th respondent - R Karnan & V Gengeys Vijay

From: 2019 3MLJ 189

TRUST: Mismanagement - Impropriety of management of trust - Allegation of - Trust created for specific group of persons in Orang Asli community – Whether intended for private purpose - Trust to safeguard and manage Trust Fund to ensure beneficiaries be given rightful share of compensation - No element of public interest - Whether Attorney General's consent in writing required to institute proceeding - Whether Attorney General ought to be joined as party - Whether civil suits filed could only be brought by Attorney General under s. 9 of Government Proceedings Act 1956.

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-219-02-2017)
For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Nagarajan Periasmay, Vinoshini Narayanasamy, David Yii; M/s T Ananthasivam

For the respondents - Tommy Thomas, Ragumaren Gopal, Kenneth Koh, MV Nathan & Gengeys Vijay; M/s G Ragumaren & Co

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-220-02-2017)
For the appellants - Ranjan Chandran, Manjeet Singh, Shopna Rani, Shoba Veera & Velary Velaythan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the respondents - Tommy Thomas, Ragumaren Gopal, Kenneth Koh, MV Nathan & Gengeys Vijay; M/s G Ragumaren & Co

(Civil Appeal No: J-02{W)-221-02-2017)
For the appellant - Bastian Vendargon & Gene Anand Verdagon; M/s Shopna Rani Malakar & Co

For the respondents - Tommy Thomas, Ragumaren Gopal, Kenneth Koh, MV Nathan & Gengeys Vijay; M/s G Ragumaren & Co

(Civil Appeal No: J-02(W)-224-02-2017)
For the appellant - VS Viswanthan, G Nadesh & Velary Velayathan; M/s Malek, Paulian & Gan

For the respondent - Prakash Menon, Renu Zechariah, Cheryl Kwan, TT Ng & Gengys Vijay; M/s Rosley Zechariah

From: 2019 3MLJ 258

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Forum – Forum conveniens – Parties entered into event licence agreement – Agreement terminated – Agreement contained exclusive jurisdiction clause stipulating that litigation arising out of or relating to agreement would be tried in United States of America – Weather Malaysia proper forum to determine dispute and / or subject matter of claim – Whether Malaysian High Court seized with jurisdiction to hear case – Whether proceedings ought to be stayed – Rules of Court 2012, O. 12 r. 10(2)

For the appellant – Nirmalan Devaraja & Joyce Lim; M/s Skrine
For the respondent – Ranjan Chandran, Ganesh Magenthiran, Nandhini Devi Nagaindren & Chandni Anantha Krishnan; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

[Editor’s note: For the High Court judgement, please see SRS Sports Centre Sdn Bhd v World Triathlon Corporation [2018 8 CLJ 519 (overruled)]

From: 2019 1CLJ 381

Evidence: Documentary evidence - Admissibility of - Power of attorney and trust deed - Defendant claimed property held on trust by plaintiff for defendant based on said documents - Whether power of attorney valid - Whether trust deed valid - Whether said property held on trust for benefit of defendant - Evidence Act 1950, s 65(1)(b),(e)

Counsel: For the plaintiff: Ranjan N Chandran (Bhavani Vadivelu & Nuriahtun Maria Samad with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the defendant: S Satharuban (Anne Sangeetha Sebastian with him); M/s Satha &Co, Kaliavaanan Murthy; PDK

From: 2019 9CLJ 812

FAMILY LAW: Children - Custody - Care, custody and control of child - Husband aggressive and abusive towards wife - Wife left matrimonial home with child - Child taken forcibly from wife and wife denied access from seeing child - Child taken care by paternal grandmother - Whether care, custody and control of child ought to be given to husband and paternal grandmother to preserve status quo - Whether in best interest of child - Right of biological mother to child -Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 88(3).

For the appellant - Ranjan Chandran & Sazarina Said; M/s Ramesh Yum & Co For the respondent - Ghazali Nik Taib; M/s Noor Jihan Ghazali & Co

[Editor's note: Appeal from High Court, Shah Alam; Originating Summons No: 24F-108-07-2015 (overruled).]

Reported by Najib Tamby

From: 2018 4MLJ 557

Undang-Undang Syarikat: Penggulungan - Pelikuidasi - Permohonan untuk memecat pelikuidasi yang dilantik oleh mahkamah - Sama ada terdapat alasan yang mencukupi untuk memecat pelikuidasi tersebut .

Ini adalah permohonan di bawah s 232(1) Akta Syarikat 1965 oleh pemohon­pemohon yang merupakan pemiutang dan juga penyumbang syarikat responden, untuk memecat pelikuidasi syarikat responden yang dilantik oleh mahkamah ('pelikuidasi responden'). Syarikat responden telah digulungkan kerana gagal membayar fi penyelenggaraan lot kedai dalam kompleks Pandan Safari ('hartanah tersebut') yang telah dibeli. Isu untuk diputuskan adalah, sama ada terdapat alasan yang mencukupi untuk memecat pelikuidasi responden yang telah dilantik oleh mahkamah.

Kaunsel: Bagi pihak pempetisyen: SH Soo; Tetuan Ze Yi & Company
Bagi pihak pemohon (penyumbang/pemiutang):
Gopal Sri Ram (S Ravenesan, David Yii & Siti Nur Amirah Awilah bersarna beliau); Tetuan S Ravenesan

Bagi pihak pelikuidasi responden:
Ranjan Chandran (Nandhini bersama beliau); Tetuan Sheela Devi & Co

Bagi pihak R & MI OUB:
T Prem Anand (Jose bersama beliau); Tetuan Deol & Gill
Bagi pihak Dirga Niaga: S Dhanaraj (Prakash Mehta bersama beliau); Tetuan Hakem Arabi & Associates

From: 2018 4MLRH 443

Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction - Forum convenience - Forum selection clause - Application to stay proceedings due to said clause in agreement between parties - Whether forum selection clause should be overridden in this case - Whether Malaysian courts had jurisdiction to hear dispute -Whether any special circumstances to warrant a stay of proceedings - Whether balance of convenience lay in favour of a stay of proceedings - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 23(J)(a)

Counsel: For the plaintiff Ranjan Chandran (Ganesh Magenthiran with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates
For the defendant: Nirmalan (Joyce Sum with him); M/s Skrine

From: 2018 8MLJ 32

Amanah dan Pemegang Amanah — Pemegang amanah — Pecah amanah — Sama ada defendan-defendan sebagai pemegang amanah mempunyai tanggungjawab fidusiari kepada plaintif-plaintif — Sama ada amanah ditubuhkan dengan sempurna —Sama ada defendan-defendan telah mengingkari tanggungjawab sebagai pemegang amanah apabila mengeluarakn wang daripada tabung Amanah — Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 s 2

G Ragumaren (Kenneth Koh, Renu Zechariah dan Cheryl Kwan bersamanya) (G Ragumaren & Co) bagi pihak plaintif. Sopna Rani Malakar (Dinesh Kanavaji, Ranjan Chandran, Bastian Vendargon, Gene Vendargon, Viswanathan, Ahmad Ezmeel, Yong Jia Wei dan Amir Hamzah Arshad bersamanya) (Sopna Rani Malakar & Co) bagi pihak defendan.

From: 2018 12 MLJ 594

CONTRACT: Breach - Claim for services rendered - Architect as main consultant to appoint engineering consultant - Claim for agreed engineering consultancy fees by architect - Architect not duly registered under Registration of Engineers Act 1967

- Whether architect could claim for agreed engineering consultancy fees - Whether claim by architect for agreed engineering consultancy fees valid - Whether there was a breach of the Architects Rules 1996 -Whether architect merely claimed agreed engineering consultancy fees on behalf of engineering consultant

For the appellant - Chan Kheng Hoe & Darryl Khor; M/s Kheng Hoe
For the respondent - Mohamed Noor Mahmood & Ranjan Chandran; M/s Mohamed Noor, Amran & Yoon

From: 2017 9CLJ 575

Land Law — Caveats — Removal of — Respondent who bought property at auction sale applied to High Court to remove appellant’s private caveat on property — Court in granting application ordered appellant to pay respondent compensation for loss/damage caused by entry of the caveat — Respondent failed to adduce any evidence of loss/damage suffered — Whether order for payment of compensation wrong in the circumstances —

Nuriahtun Maria bt Samad (Bhavani a/p Vadivelu and Tamisha a/p Rajendran with her) (Hakem Arabi & Associates) for the appellant. Wong Kok Yih (Kenneth Khoo Ewe Kong with him) (Ewe Chong & Khoo) for the respondent.

From: 2017 4 MLJ 359

Civil Procedure: Intervention - Application for - Applicants claimed order of specific performance to be considered in proceeding would have adverse consequences on their existing obligations - Whether `legal I direct interests’ requirement fulfilled - Whether `commercial interest’ amounted to `legal/direct interests’ - Rules of Court 2012, 0 15 r 6

For the plaintiff: Ranjan N Chandran (Dhanaraj Sivasampu with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates
For the 1st defendant: T Susielan (R Shanti with him); M/s Susielan & Associates
For the 6th defendant: Andrew Yee; M/s Mohd Rawi, Andrew & Associates
For the 7th defendant: KL Choy; M/s KL Choy & Co
For the 1st & 2nd interveners: Manoharan Tevadasin (Nik Muhammad Syafiq Nik Hilmi with him); M/s Ong & Partners

From: 2017 3MLRH 589

CONTRACT: Agreement - Construction and clearing of land - Claim for works done - Whether appellant failed to complete works as per contract - Whether there was damage to land - Issue of whether damage caused by appellant and not by monsoon rain - Onus of proof - Whether on respondent - Whether burden discharged by respondent - Whether appellant entitled to claim

For the appellant - Jegadeeson Thavasu; Mis Jega Kumar & Partners
For the respondent - N Chandran, Tenh Cheng Tiap & Ranjan Chandran; M/s CK Lim, Tenh & Chong

[Editor's note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd v. Hong Yik Trading [2016] 1 LNS 141 (overruled).]

Reported by Wan Sharif Ahmad

2017 5MLJ 398

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Liquidators - Developer company wound up - Liquidator for developer company could not conduct verification exercise to ascertain ownership of properties - Liquidator obtained vesting order and resold properties to new purchasers - Whether properties were assets of developer company - Whether liquidator right to put properties into his custody and control and in applying for vesting order - Whether sale and transfer of properties to new purchasers bona fide and valid - Whether vesting order valid - Companies Act 1965, ss. 233 & 236

For the appellants - Lau Kee Sern; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

For the 1st respondent - Harpal Singh Grewal, Sumathi, Sabrina Richards & Reny Rao; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the 2nd, 3rd & 4th respondents - Jasvinjit Singh; M/s Jasvinjit Singh & Co

From: 2017 5 CLJ 17

COMPANY LAW: Liquidators - Application for removal - Duty of liquidators to complete liquidation process efficiently - Inaction/delay on part of liquidators to complete liquidation process - Whether liquidators deviated from primary duty to wind-up business of Company - Whether application for removal of liquidator should be allowed

For the appellants - Harpal Singh Grewal, Mark Ho, S Sumathi, Rewny Rao & Nurul Najwa; M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the 1st respondent - Tan Gian Chung & Tan Shu Shuen; M/s Shook Lin & Bok

For the 2nd respondent - Izabella De Silva & Chow Yee Wan; M/s Iza Ng Yeoh & Kit

From: 2016 9 CLJ 207

Evidence – judge - Failure to consider all evidence – Whether : trial judge did not adequately appreciate all evidence concerning defendant’s counterclaim

Whether testimonies of defendants witnesses who carried out remedial works to remedy plaintiff's defective work not considered at all by trial judge – Whether trial court wrong to have dismissed counterclaim based on un-pleaded allegation

Appeal from: Suit No High Court(1)-22-NCVC-154-10 of 2012 (High Court, Kora Baharu)

N Chandran (Tenh Cheng Tiap and Ranjan N Chandran with him) (CK Lim, Tenh & Chong) for the appellant.

Ahmad Nurie bin Ab Rahman (Nurie Khairuddin & Co) for the respondent.

From: 2016 4MLJ 229

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Statutory bodies - Decision - Letter by Commissioner of Buildings under Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ('BCP A') - Whether letter emanated from statutory provision and addressed dispute - Whether demanded compliance by person addressed to - Whether a decision under BCPA - Failure to appeal to State Authority against decision - Whether decision final and conclusive

For the plaintiff - N Chandran, M Kalaiclzelvan & Ranjan Chandran; M/s Abd Halim Ushah & Assocs
For the defendant - Jadadish Chandra; M/s Arbain & Co

From: 2016 6CLJ 411

Banking - Securities for advances - Mortgage - Equitable mortgage - Land assigned to financier as security for loan - Whether lender becomes equitable mortgagee - Whether lender may deal with property absolutely and beneficially upon default of loan - Whether equitable interest prohibited by National Land Code - Whether court ought to enforce equitable mortgage

Ranjan N Chandran (Gobind Singh Deo and Joanne Chua Tsu Fae with him) (Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik) for the appellant.

Yoong Sin Min (Poh Choo Hoe with him) (Shook Lin & Bok) for the respondent.

From: 2015 6MLJ 1

Civil Law Act — Assignment — Statutory assignment — Assignment of debts — Prerequisite conditions for valid assignment — Whether debt established — Whether assignment in writing — Whether express notice of assignment given — Whether consent of debtor required — Whether intention to create absolute assignment established — Whether debtor may be liable to assignor despite having settled debt to assignee — Civil Law Act 1956 s 4(3)

M Ganesh (Hakem Arabi & Associates) for the plaintiff. Noerazlim bt Saidil (Senior Federal Counsel, Attorney General’s Chambers).

From: 2016 8 MLJ 840

Civil Procedure: Parties — Non-joinder — Substantive fairness — Whether substantive unfairness should be invoked to condone non joinder of party

Counsel:

For the appellant: N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran & Horazali Nordin with him); M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik

For the respondents: Savinderjeet Singh; M/s Sekhar, Savin & Partners

From: 2016 2 MLRA 61

Land Law - vacant possession - Claim for - Claim based - on contention plaintiff was registered owner of land - Challenge raised by defendant during cross-examination that transfer of land to plaintiff void for non-compliance with s 214A of the National Land Code - Issue of illegality raised by defendant not pleaded-Whether burden on plaintiff to prove it was lawful owner of land and that s 214A had been complied with

Gopal Sri Ram (Chan Kok Keong, Cheang Lek Choy and Ranjan Chandran with him) (Chan & Assoc) for the appellant.
Rajinder Singh Veriah (Rheena Kaur Veriah with him) (Rajinder Singh Veriah & Co) for the respondent.

From: 2014 6MLJ 341

Contract: Sale and purchase of land — Breach ofsale and purchase agreement — Claim for monies paid — 2nd defendant obtained High Court judgment for lien over said lands until plaintiff returned monies paid — Application to set aside said judgment — Whether sale and purchase agreement null and void — Whether said judgment binding on plaintiff — Whether said judgment obtained by fraud — Whether said judgment made without hearing plaintiff's claim — Whether said judgment should be set aside

For the plaintiff N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran, Norazali Nordin & Siti Hawa with him); M/ s Chan & Associates

For the 2nd defendant: Savinderjeet Singh (Sekhar Subramaniam with him); M/s Sekhar Savin & Partners

From: 2015 1 MLRH

Contract – Breach – Agreement - Contract in form of statutory declaration - Agreement for defendant to pay 40% of proceeds of sale of land to plaintiff ­ Refusal to pay promised share upon sale of land - Application for summary judgment for promised share - Defence that defendant not well-versed in English and did not understand statutory declaration – Whether defence bona fide

Appeal from: Civil Suit No S-22-976 of 2010 (High Court, Shah Alam)

N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran and Naraendran with him). (The Chambers of Naraendran) for the appellant.

Gurdit Singh (C Ramasamy with him) (Sharif & Khoo) for the respondent.

From: 2014 2MLJ 240

LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary committee - Findings of - Whether within scope of complaint – Whether main findings consistent with subsidiary findings

LEGAL PROFESSION: Professional discipline - Misconduct - Advocate and solicitor suspended from practice for 18 months – Whether punishment adequate and proportionate to degree of professional misconduct

For the appellant - N Chandran (Chan Kok Keong, Ranjan Chandran & Goh Ngai Chean with him); M/s Chan & Assocs
For the respondent - Edmund Lim Yun; M/s Hong Chew King & Co
For the disciplinary board - Baba Raj Rajagopal [Appeal from High Court, Ipoh; Civil Appeal No: 17-28-2007]

From: 2014 2MLJ 715

Kontrak — Perjanjian penyewaan — Pembatalan — Dakwaan penipuan dan salah nyata secara suci hati — Sama ada defendan memberikan representasi secara penipuan bahawa ia adalah pemilik dan mempunyai lesen untuk menyewakan premis tersebut — Sama ada perjanjian penyewaan menyatakan 'landlord' itu dirujuk sebagai pemilik berdaftar —

Munawirah Mohamad (P Suppiah dan Shamsul Akmal Isa bersamanya) (Abdul Raman Saad & Associates) bagi pihak plaintif.

Dhanaraj Sivasampu (Md Shariff bin Mohamad Yusoff dan Ganesh a/l Magenthiran bersamanya) (Hakem Arabi & Associates) bagi pihak defendan.

From: 2014 9 MLJ 660

Contract - Agency - Sale of land - Whether valid and binding oral agency contract existed - Whether terms of alleged contract vague uncertain and incapable of being made certain - Whether plaintiff neither introduced lands to purchaser nor secured purchaser's offer to buy -· Whether plaintiff was efficient/effective cause of sale of lands - Contracts Act 1950 s 30

N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran with him) (Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik) for the plaintiff.
Lee Chin Peow (Lee Partnership) for the defendant.

From: 2014 7MLJ 476

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Affidavits - Deponent of affidavits - Affirmation of - Whether affidavit in support affirmed by director of plaintiffs subsidiary company admissible - Whether deponent had personal knowledge of facts relating to case

For the plaintiff - Alvin Julian (G Rajasingam, Tracy Wong & Angkit Sanghvi with him); .M/s Shearn Delamore & Co

For the defendant - Datuk N Chandran (Datuk David Gurupathan & Ranjan Chandran with him); M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik

From: 2012 8CLJ 601

CONTRACT: Building contract - Termination - Contractor petitioned court under s. 176(1) Companies Act 1965, for approval of scheme of composition with creditors - Whether cl. 25(2) PAM Standard Form Building Contract of Malaysia triggered causing automatic termination of main contract - Issuance of moratorium order under s. 176(10) Companies Act 1965 - Whether activated cl. 25(2) PAM Standard Form Building Contract

For the appellant - Dato' Cyrus Das (RM Krishnan & Harvinderjit Singh with him); M/s Kumar Partnership

For the respondents - Datuk N Chandran (Mahendran Chelliah & Ranjan Chandran with him); M/s RR Chelliah Brothers

[Appeal from Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No: W-02-1094-2009]

Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin

From: 2012 1MLJ 729

Contract - Agreement - Licence agreement - Licence agreement to operate petrol station on land Breach of -Breach of - Whether defendant had committed any breaches of 2001 licence agreement - Whether plaintiff had identified relevant provisions of 2001 agreement as breached by defendant – Whether defendant failed to maintain forecourt of petrol station - Undue influence - Duress - Whether plaintiff was forced or threatened to sign 2006 licence agreement

N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran with her) (Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik) for the plamtiff / appellant.
Raja Eileen Soraya (Kimberly Lee with him) (Raja Darryl & Loh) for the defendant / respondent.

From: 2012 8MLJ 29

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal to Federal Court - Application for leave to appeal against decision of Court of Appeal - Matter originated from Co-operative Tribunal under Co-operative Societies Act 1993 - Whether High Court exercising its original or appellate jurisdiction in an appeal from Co-operative Tribunal - Whether application came within ambit of s. 96(a) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Co-operative Societies Act 1993, s. 83(7) - Rules of the High Court 1980. 0. 55 r. 13 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s. 96(a)

For the applicant - K Shanmuga; M/s Kanesalingam & Co

For the respondent - N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran with him); M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik

[Editor's note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see Kumar Gurusamy v. Koperasi Jimat-Cermat Dan Pinjaman Keretapi Bhd [201 J] J CLJ 318.]

Reported by Suresh Nathan

From 2011 2MLJ 433

Banking - Banker and customer - Action by customer against banker – Credit facilities - Restructured facility agreement - Whether appellant breached obligation to pay interest

Contract – Agreement - Facility agreement - Breach - Whether there was concluded agreement - Whether operation of restructured agreement subject to conditions precedent fulfilled - Whether respondent breached concluded agreement by unilaterally imposing 1:1 basis term – Damages - Whether appellant taken reasonable steps to mitigate loss

Appeal from: Suit No D6(D1)-22-2531 of 1999 (High Court, Kuala Lumpur)

M S Murthi (Ranjan Chandran with him) (Chambers of Murthi & Partners) for the appellant. Nitin V Nadkarni (Darshendev Singh with him) (Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill) for the respondent.

From: 2011 5MLJ 1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Rules of natural justice - Right to be heard - By-law of co-operative society providing for removal of member – By law silent as to member's right of being heard before removal of membership - By-law not expressly excluding member the opportunity of being heard - Whether member had a right to be heard before being removed from

For the appellant - Dato' Chandran (Ranjan Chandran with him); M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik For the respondent - K Shanmuga; M/s Kanesalingam & Co

[Appeal, from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Originating Motion No: R3 (1)-110-04]

From: 2011 2MLJ 147

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interpleader summons – Stakeholder’s interpleader – Land titles deposited with solicitors acting as stakeholder for registered proprietor and developer – Solicitors agreed in writing to return land titles to registered proprietor upon “receipt of a valid and binding order from either the Arbitrator or the High Court, as the case may be, in that respect” – Solicitors refused to abide by undertaking when arbitration award was given in view of developer’s pending proceeding to challenge arbitration award – Weather solicitors to abide by undertaking given – Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 17 r. 1

For appellant – Su Tiang Joo (William HS Foo with him); M/S Cheah Teh & Su
For the 1st respondent – Lee Swee Seng (Annou Xavier with him); M/s Lee Swee Seng & Co
For the 2nd respondent – Datuk N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran & Edwin Lim with him); M/s Edwin Lim & Suren

From: 2010 3MLJ 569

CONTRACT: Breach - Building contract - Agreement for sale of shoplot in building - Vendor unable to deliver vacant possession by specified time - Whether purchaser entitled to rescind agreement, recover moneys paid and claim damages - Whether claim for liquidated damages for late delivery disentitled purchaser from rescinding agreement - No provision on rescission in agreement, whether consequential - Purchaser continuing to make instalment payments, whether a waiver of right to rescission - Contracts Act 1950, s. 56(1)

For the appellant -B Thangaraj (Ranjan Chandran with him); M/s Thangaraj & Assoc

For the respondent - Lambert Rasa-Ratnam (Mong Chung Seng & Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo with him); M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Glendhill

[Appeal from Court of Appeal; Civil Appeal No: W-02-546-2004]

[Editor's note: For the Court of Appeal judgment, please see Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v. M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 309]

Reported by Amutha Suppayah

From: 2010 1MLJ 597

CONTRACT: Building contract - Termination of - Claim for balance contract sum - Time to commence proceedings - Limitation of action - Architect's certificates, interim and final - Finality of Architect's certificates

LIMITATION: Contract - Building contract - Termination of – Claim for balance contract sum - Time to commence proceedings - Limitation of action - Architect's certificates, interim and final - Finality of Architect's certificates

For the plaintiff - Ranjan Chandran; M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik For the defendant - Jennifer Chandran; M/s Vaasan Chan & Chandran

Reported by Ranjan Chandran

From: 2010 1CLJ 1041

Landlord and Tenant – Rent - Non-payment of - Trespass - Landlord sealed off land and demolished buildings on it - Whether remedy of self-help available to landlord when tenant breached tenancy agreement - Whether tenant estopped from raising llegality when notice of termination based on failure to pay rental given - Specific Relief Act 1950 ss 7 & 8

Appeal from: Civil Suit No 22-76 of 2001 (High Court, Ipoh)

N Chandran (Philip Koh, Chan Kok Keong, Yap Boon Hau, Leong Cheok Keng and Ranjan Chandran with him) (Leong & Tan) for the appellant.

Vijaya Segaran (Lee Soon Ming and Danial Rahman with him) (Maxwell, Kenion, Cowdy & Jones) for the respondent.

From: 2009 6MLJ 1

Succession — Distribution of estate — Intestacy — Beneficiaries renouncing rights to share in property of deceased in favour of administratrix — Letter of renunciation and consent executed — Whether renunciation valid and effective — Whether administratrix had become absolute beneficial owner of property of deceased

Succession — Letters of administration — Agreement to renounce — Beneficiaries renouncing rights to share in property of deceased in favour of administratrix — Letter of renunciation and consent executed — Whether renunciation valid and effective — Whether administratrix had become absolute beneficial owner of property of deceased

Ranjan Chandran (Ivan Ang with him) (Ranjan Chitravathy & Nik) for the plaintiffs. Sharon Balasingam (Arulampalam & Co) for the defendants

From: 2009 8 MLJ 600

Contract - Option to purchase - Sale and purchase of property - Failure to pay 10%deposit as stipulated in option - Whether option was binding

Bastian Vendargon (Dennis Appaduray with him) (Dennis Nik & Wong) the first to thesixth defendants. Mura Raju (Mura Raju & Co) for the respondents (the first and second plaintiffs).

N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran and Susan Joseph with him) (Azman Joseph & Associates) for the respondents / interveners (the first and second intervener plaintiffs).

Prasad Abraham (Prasad Abraham & Associates) for the respondent/third party.

From: 2007 4MLJ 214

Succession - Estate - Direction to return all money and properties removed from estate - Order made far benefit of estate

Succession - Estate - Order for exemplary damages - Whether there was evidence to show any profit having been made from money and properties removed from estate

Succession - Will- Execution - Validity of wills - Test of formal validity- Whether all formal requirements had been attended to in making of wills - Wills Act 1959 s 5

Lim Chee Wee (Harold Tan with him) (Skrine) for the appellants in Civil Appeal No P-02-360 of 1998 and the 14th-16th respondents in Civil Appeal No P-02-409 of 1998.

N Chandran (E Ramasamy Ranjan Chandran, Roy Etican and Ivan Ang with him) (E Ramasamy & Co) for the first respondent in Civil Appeals No P-02-360 of 1998 and P-02-409 of 1998.

John Khoo Boo Lai (Mohd Ismail bin Mohamed with him) (Ismail Khoo & Associates) for the second-fifth and ninth-13th respondents in Civil Appeal No P-02-360 of 1998 and P-02-409 of 1998.

Shyamala Devi (Hussein & Co) for the sixth-eighth respondents in Civil Appeal No P-02-360 of 1998 and P-02-409 of 1998.

JA Yeoh (Shearn Delamare & Co) for the 14th-16th respondents in Civil Appeal No P-02-360 of 1998 and the appellants in Civil Appeal No P-02-409 of 1998.

From: 2005 6MLJ 540

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Petition - Application by plaintiff company to restrain defendant from filing winding-up petition against it - Plaintiff disputed sum claimed in petition - Whether sum claimed need not be proved by defendant before filing of petition - Whether plaintiff could contest petition at hearing thereof - Whether plaintiff to prove that intended petition would prima facie fail - Proof of plaintiff's solvency - Whether premature for court to consider at this stage - Whether application was interlocutory and should be discouraged

For the plaintiff - Govin Sreedharan; M/s Choong & Co

For the defendant - N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran & S Dhanaraj); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

Reported by Usha Thiagarajah

From: 2003 4CLJ 142

Civil Procedure - Striking out - Statement of claim - Affidavits in support of application - Whether affidavits in support consistent with grounds set out in summons in chambers -Rules of the High Court 1980 O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d)

Legislation referred to
Rules of the High Court 1980 O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d)
Datuk N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran with him) (Ranjan Chitravathy & Co) for the plaintiff.
DP Naban (SC Cheah with him) (Lee Hishammuddin) for the defendant.

From: 2004 1MLJ 252

Land Law: Charge – Order of sale – Cause to the contrary – Failure of plaintiff / financier to comply with ss. 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23 Moneylenders Act 1951 – Whether constitutes ‘cause to the contrary’ within meaning of s. 256(3) National Land Code 1965

Moneylenders: Moneylenders Act – Application and exemption – Exemption gazetted by Minister – Whether applies to moneylender / chargee – Whether failure of moneylender to comply with provision of Moneylenders Act constitutes ‘cause to contrary’ within meaning of s. 256(3) National Land Code 1965 – Moneylenders Act 1951, ss. 2A, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23

For plaintiff – Caroline Jim; M/s Paul Chong & Nathan For defendant – Ranjan Chandran; M/s Ranjan Chitravathy & Co

From: 2003 1MLJ 90

Companies & Corporations - Winding up - Injunction to restrain petition - Whether there is any triable issues which would entail a statutory winding up - Court being converted into a common law trial court - Winding up proceedings against plaintiff on the basis of a purported agreement pursuant to an alleged meeting-Agreement allegedly concluded based on handwritten notes - Companies Act 1965 s 218

Companies & Corporations - Winding up - Indoor management rule - When applicable -Whether serious questions of fact and law had arisen - Whether injunction ought to be granted

N Navaratnam (WK Wong and Humaira Sulaiman with him) for the/ plaintiff.

Ranjan Chandran (S Dhanaraj and Abdul Hakem Arabi with him) (Hakem Arabi & Associates) for the defendant.

From: 2002 3MLJ 169

Contract – Rention monies – Application to preserve retention monies pending outcome of dispute on claim for liquidated and ascertained damages for late completion of building contract – Weather defendant held retention monies on trust – Weather preservation of retention monies by defendant against whom winding-up proceedings have been taken out is tantamount to preferential treatment and is prohibited under s 223 of Companies Act 1965 – Companies Act 1965 s 223

N Chandran, Ranjan Chandran and S Dhanaraj (Hakem Arabi & Associates) for Plaintiff

Ringo Low and Grace Chong (SC Lim & Partners) for defendant

ARBITRATION: Arbitrator - Question of law to be determined by court - Architectural and engineering services - First defendant not registered under Architects Act 1967 and Registration of Engineers Act 1967 - Illegality of first defendant's claim for fees -Whether question of law clear -Whether can be stated as point of law - Whether open to serious argument -Whether point of law important for resolution of parties' dispute -Whether point of law raised bona fide - Whether plaintiff has fulfilled requirements of s. 22 of the Arbitration Act 1952 -Contracts Act 1950, s. 24(a), (b)

For the plaintiff - CF Lim (R Yatiswara & Annbel Chua); M/s Azman, Davidson & Co
For the defendant -N Chandran (Ranjan Chandran & G Gunaseelan); M/s G Gunaseelan & Assoc
Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin

From: 2002 5CLJ 86

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Affidavit in support of application — Affidavit not signed by deponent, whether compliance with first limb of O 41 r 1(7) of Rules of the High Court 1980 — Whether jurat should be entitled — Whether deponent should depose that affidavit was affirmed based on deponent's information and belief — Rules of the High Court 1980 O 41 rr 1(7) & 5

Ranjan Chandran (Ranjan Chitravathy & Co) for the plaintiffs.

From: 2001 4 MLJ 423

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Interim preservation of property - Rules of the High Court 1980, 0. 29 r. 2(1) - Claim for sum of money to be secured in the event claimant successful at trial proper - Claim a part of retention sum for work done under building contract - Whether building contract procured by fraud - Whether in view thereof there was no obligation on opposing party to put aside retention monies - Whether also claim thereof a debt that should not have priority over other debts claimed for by claimant

For the plaintiff - Ranjan Chandran (Dhanaraj Sivasampu with him); M/s Hakem Arabi & Associates

For the defendant - Annabel CH Chua; Mis Azman, Davidson & Co
Reported by Usha Thiagarajah

From: 2000 6MLJ 513

Civil Procedure - Security for costs against plaintiff- Plaintiff a foreign company domiciled overseas - Whether circumstances were such to grant security for costs – Rules of the High Court 1980 O 23 r 1 (1)

lzabella de Silva (Ranjan Chandran with her) (Iza Ng Yeoh & Kit) for the appellant/defendant.
K Goik (Malik & Partners) for the respondent/plaintiff.

From: 2000 1MLJ 556

Agency - Authority of agent - Draft letter of award issued by agent - Whether agent had authority to issue letter of award - Whether agent had authority to award tender draft award acted upon by offeree to the knowledge of offeror - Effect of award

Fiona Barnaby (Cheah Yap & Partners) for the plaintiff.
Ranjan Chandran (lza Ng Yeo & Kit) for the first defendant.
Koh Yew Chong (Shahrir bin Mohd Salleh with him) (Shahrir Ng & Koh) for the second defendant.

From: 1996 6CLJ 513

Civil Procedure - Summary judgment - Arguable issues – Public interest consideration - Whether application for summary judgment should be allowed

K Giok (Malik & Partners) for the plaintiff.
Ranjan Chandran (lza Ng Yeoh & Kit) for the defendant.

From: 1999 3MLJ 133