CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2014, Vol 34 22 August 2014 Print this page |
MAXLAND SDN BHD v. TIMATCH SDN BHD
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ, ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA), ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(I)-88-11-2012 (S)]
24 JULY 2014
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action - Action by writ - Judgment in default - Generally indorsed writ - Generally indorsed writ claiming for damages and restraining order for trespass - Failure to enter appearance in time - Whether plaintiff entitled to enter judgment in default - Whether must serve statement of claim on defendant and proceed with action as if appearance had been duly entered - Judgment obtained before service of statement of claim - Whether liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae - Rules of High Court 1980, O. 13 rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(1) - Scope and effect
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Writ of summons - Indorsement, general - Generally indorsed writ claiming for damages and restraining order for trespass - Judgment in default - Judgment in default of appearance entered pursuant to O. 13 r. 2 RHC 1980 - Whether flawed - Claim for `restraining order' - Whether falling outside scope of O. 13 RHC 1980 - Claim for `damages to be assessed' - Whether mere adjunct to main relief - Abandonment of claim for `restraining order' - Whether made clear - Whether judgment to be set aside ex debito justitiae - Rules of High Court 1980, O. 13 rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(1)
Legal Network Series
[2013] 1 LNS 1008 FORMOSA RESORT SDN BHD lwn. MYHOME DISCOVERY (M) SDN BHD PROSEDUR SIVIL: Prosiding terus pemilikan tanah - Pemakaian - Aturan 89 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 - Pencerobohan tanah - Sama ada tindakan yang diambil oleh plaintif melalui Aturan 89 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah betul dan bersesuaian
UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pencerobohan - Pencerobohan atas tanah - Sama ada terdapat pencerobohan oleh defendan atas tanah milik plaintif - Sama ada tindakan defendan yang kekal menetap di atas tanah plaintif setelah menyedari bahawa bangunan kepunyaannya telah termasuk di dalam tanah plaintif adalah satu pencerobohan - Sama ada keengganan defendan untuk merobohkan bahagian bangunan yang telah termasuk ke dalam tanah plaintif adalah satu pencerobohan[2013] 1 LNS 1030 KCP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION lwn. POTENSI NAGA SDN BHD UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik Strata - Caj pengurusan dan penyelenggaraan - Tuntutan oleh badan pengurusan - Sama ada badan pengurusan dapat menuntut caj perkhidmatan pengurusan dan penyelenggaraan - Sama ada defendan terhutang kepada badan pengurusan bagi caj perkhidmatan pengurusan dan penyelenggaraan harta-harta bersama - Sama ada kehendak seksyen 52(1) Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 dipenuhi
KETERANGAN: Beban pembuktiaan - Tuntutan bayaran oleh badan pengurusan - Sama ada terdapat keterangan bagi menunjukkan kerja-kerja pengurusan dan penyelenggaraan telah dilakukan oleh badan pengurusan - Sama ada terdapat sebarang keterangan menunjukkan resolusi atau keputusan yang dicapai berkaitan penetapan kadar faedah bagi kelewatan bayaran - Sama ada plaintif dapat menunjukkan bukti penerimaan invois dan notis oleh defendan
GANTI RUGI: Taksiran - Perintah untuk taksiran - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai tugas untuk membuat taksiran ganti rugi jika plaintif gagal membuktikan jumlah tuntutan yang sebenar yang harus dibayar oleh defendan[2013] 1 LNS 1088 KOH YOOK TIN (menyaman sebagai wasi (executor) kepada estet Lim Chuak @ Lim Kwee Kee, simati) v. KOH KIM LENG @ HOO KIM LENG & ANOR COMPANY LAW: Shares - Transfer of shares - Whether the Deceased, being a shareholder of the company, ranked pari pasu with all other shareholders and had the same rights - Whether the Deceased or her Estate should be allotted her entitlement of shares as all other shareholders received their respective entitlements without having to pay for their shares - Whether there was justification for shares to be transferred to 2nd defendant as 2nd defendant did not pay for it nor sign an acknowledgement of debt for the shares - Whether 2nd defendant had a right to purchase the shares
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Limitation of action - Constructive trust – 1st defendant did not tell plaintiff he had transferred shares to 2nd defendant's name – Whether s. 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 applicable since 1st defendant was a trustee - Whether s. 22 of the Limitation Act 1953 applied - Whether plaintiff's action barred by limitation
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES: Duties - Fiduciary duty – 1st defendant admitted that company was a family company and he was managing the business for the benefit of all the family members cum shareholders - Whether 1st defendant was a trustee of the estate of the Deceased - Whether 1st defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the estate of the Deceased, plaintiff and other shareholders - Whether 1st defendant breached his fiduciary duty when he allowed 2nd defendant to purchase shares and transferred shares to 2nd defendant[2014] 1 LNS 80 MEGANATHAN GOVINDASAMY v. VIVAKANANDAN GOVINDASAMY EVIDENCE: Conflicting testimony - Approach to take - Conflicting versions as to how property came to be transferred in plaintiff and defendant's joint names - Which version more plausible or probable - Whether plaintiff was co-owner of property as nominee or trustee - Oral averments of plaintiff that payments were made through his mother over a period of seven years - Whether burden on him to prove that such payments were made - Whether defendant sufficiently proved that plaintiff was a mere nominee or trustee for the said land on behalf of defendant
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g) - Plaintiff claimed such payments were made through his mother - Failure to call his mother to confirm his story - Whether an adverse inference should be drawn - If plaintiff's mother had been called, whether she would have given evidence unfavourable to plaintiff[2014] 1 LNS 82 RAYMOND MAH MUN KITT v. BENGJAYA SDN BHD CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Application for - Dishonour of cheque drawn by defendant in favour of plaintiff - Whether defendant could rely on defences of illegality and total failure of consideration - Whether plaintiff's fee agreement with defendant permissible under s. 116 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) - Claim that legal fees charged was exorbitant - Whether defendant's cause of action to dispute the bill time-barred under the LPA - Whether triable issues raised CLJ 2014 Volume 7 (Part 2)
COURT
FEDERAL COURT
Maxland Sdn Bhd v. Timatch Sdn Bhd
Arifin Zakaria CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali FCJJ
(Civil Procedure - Action by writ - Judgment in default - Rules of High Court 1980 - Scope and effect) [2014] 7 CLJ 149 [FC]COURT OF APPEAL
AXA Affin Assurance Berhad v. MTD Construction Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Anantham Kasinather JJCA)
(Insurance - Claim - Notification - Distinction between notification of claim and notification of loss) [2014] 7 CLJ 169 [CA]Lo Ga Lung v. Diong Ching Diung
Azahar Mohamed, David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar JJCA
(Moneylenders; Contract - Moneylending transaction - Document of debt - Whether non-compliance rendered debt documents null and void) [2014] 7 CLJ 191 [CA]Mesuntung Property Sdn Bhd v. Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd
Ramly Ali, Mohtarudin Baki, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA
(Company Law; Contract - Sale and purchase agreement - Specific performance - Claim for - Companies Act 1965, s. 226(3)) [2014] 7 CLJ 202 [CA]Wan Farid Wan Ramli lwn. PP
Azahar Mohamed, Mohtarudin Baki, Lim Yee Lan HHMR
(Undang-undang Jenayah; Prosedur Jenayah; Keterangan - Bunuh - Pembuktian - Saksi mata tunggal - Penilaian keterangan) [2014] 7 CLJ 218 [CA]HIGH COURT
Ali Osman Awang Hitam & Yang Lain lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Rompin & Yang Lain
Mariana Yahya H
(Undang-undang Tanah; Had Masa - Pengambilan tanah) [2014] 7 CLJ 229 [HC]Perfect Channel Sdn Bhd lwn. Azmi Ahmad & Yang Lain
Abu Bakar Katar PK
(Undang-undang Buruh - Pekerjaan - Sama ada majikan boleh membuat potongan daripada bayaran faedah penamatan kerja) [2014] 7 CLJ 248 [HC]Sutures (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Worldwide Holdings Bhd & Ors
Lim Chong Fong JC
(Contract - Delay in performance of obligations under agreement - Whether commercial object of agreement thwarted) [2014] 7 CLJ 266 [HC]SUBJECT INDEX
COMPANY LAW
Winding up - Proceedings against company - Leave to commence legal action against company - Application for - Whether there was prima facie case - Whether reasonable cause of action arose - Whether claim for specific performance of a contract frivolous and baseless - Whether there was serious dispute between litigants warranting trial - Whether leave to commence action should be allowed - Companies Act 1965, s. 226(3)
Mesuntung Property Sdn Bhd v. Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd
(Ramly Ali, Mohtarudin Baki, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 202 [CA]CONTRACT
Agreement - Validity and enforceability - Delay in performance of obligations under agreement - Whether commercial object of agreement thwarted - Whether condition stipulated in agreement breached - Whether contract repudiated - Termination of contract - Whether lawfully terminated - New contract entered between defendants - Allegation of conspiracy - Whether proved - Whether bare charge with no cogent evidence - Whether project hijacked by defendants - Whether there was exclusivity agreement between plaintiff and third defendant - Whether third defendant entitled to enter into agreement with third party - Whether new contract between defendants was with lawful object and by lawful means - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 52, 53 & 55
Sutures (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Worldwide Holdings Bhd & Ors
(Lim Chong Fong JC) [2014] 7 CLJ 266 [HC]Repudiation - Delay in performance - Anticipatory or repudiatory - Non-delivery of obligations under agreement - Whether commercial object of agreement thwarted - Whether condition stipulated in agreement breached - Termination of contract - Whether lawfully terminated - New contract entered between defendants - Allegation of conspiracy - Whether proved - Whether bare charge with no cogent evidence - Whether project hijacked by defendants - Whether there was exclusivity agreement between plaintiff and third defendant - Whether third defendant entitled to enter into agreement with third party - Whether new contract between defendants was with lawful object and by lawful means - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 52, 53 & 55
Sutures (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Worldwide Holdings Bhd & Ors
(Lim Chong Fong JC) [2014] 7 CLJ 266 [HC]Sale and purchase agreement - Specific performance - Claim for - Proceedings against wound up company - Leave to commence legal action - Application for - Whether there was prima facie case - Whether reasonable cause of action arose - Whether claim frivolous and baseless - Whether there was serious dispute between litigants warranting trial - Whether leave to commence action should be allowed - Companies Act 1965, s. 226(3)
Mesuntung Property Sdn Bhd v. Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd
(Ramly Ali, Mohtarudin Baki, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 202 [CA]Specific performance - Claim for - Validity and enforceability of agreement - Delay in performance of obligations under agreement - Whether commercial object of agreement thwarted - Whether contract repudiated - Termination of contract by third defendant - Whether lawfully terminated - New contract entered between defendants - Allegation of conspiracy - Whether proved - Whether bare charge with no cogent evidence - Whether project hijacked by defendants - Whether there was exclusivity agreement between plaintiff and third defendant - Whether third defendant entitled to enter into agreement with third party - Whether new contract between defendants was with lawful object and by lawful means - Contracts Act 1950, ss. 52, 53 & 55
Sutures (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Worldwide Holdings Bhd & Ors
(Lim Chong Fong JC) [2014] 7 CLJ 266 [HC]CIVIL PROCEDURE
Action - Action by writ - Judgment in default - Generally indorsed writ - Generally indorsed writ claiming for damages and restraining order for trespass - Failure to enter appearance in time - Whether plaintiff entitled to enter judgment in default - Whether must serve statement of claim on defendant and proceed with action as if appearance had been duly entered - Judgment obtained before service of statement of claim - Whether liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae - Rules of High Court 1980, O. 13 rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(1) - Scope and effect
Maxland Sdn Bhd v. Timatch Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali FCJJ) [2014] 7 CLJ 149 [FC]Writ of summons - Indorsement, general - Generally indorsed writ claiming for damages and restraining order for trespass - Judgment in default - Judgment in default of appearance entered pursuant to O. 13 r. 2 RHC 1980 - Whether flawed - Claim for 'restraining order' - Whether falling outside scope of O. 13 RHC 1980 - Claim for 'damages to be assessed' - Whether mere adjunct to main relief - Abandonment of claim for 'restraining order' - Whether made clear - Whether judgment to be set aside ex debito justitiae - Rules of High Court 1980, O. 13 rr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(1)
Maxland Sdn Bhd v. Timatch Sdn Bhd
(Arifin Zakaria CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali FCJJ) [2014] 7 CLJ 149 [FC]CONTRACT
Void contract - Restitution - Application for - Moneylending transaction - Whether debt documents declared void - Whether failure of fundamental substratum of application - Contracts Act 1950, s. 66
Lo Ga Lung v. Diong Ching Diung
(Azahar Mohamed, David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 191 [CA]INSURANCE
Claim - Notification - Delay - Whether there was delay in notification of claim - Whether obligation to give notice condition precedent - Distinction between notification of claim and notification of loss
AXA Affin Assurance Berhad v. MTD Construction Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Anantham Kasinather JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 169 [CA]Contractor's all risk policy - Repudiation of liability - Road construction project - Claim arising from major slope failures - Whether slope failures due to faulty design - Whether there was delay in notification of claim - Whether insured failed to disclose previous slope failures prior to renewal of policy - Whether insurer's liability limited to 50% of losses due to rateable proportion clause
AXA Affin Assurance Berhad v. MTD Construction Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Anantham Kasinather JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 169 [CA]Policy - Construction of policy - Whether obligation to give notice a condition precedent - Literal construction - Whether natural construction prevailed where terms are clear
AXA Affin Assurance Berhad v. MTD Construction Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Anantham Kasinather JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 169 [CA]MONEYLENDERS
Moneylending transaction - Document of debt - Making of - Whether documents attested by 'officer of the court' - Whether practising advocate and solicitor an 'officer of the court' - Whether in compliance with ss. 3 and 4 of Moneylenders Ordinance - Whether non-compliance rendered debt documents null and void
Lo Ga Lung v. Diong Ching Diung
(Azahar Mohamed, David Wong Dak Wah, Abang Iskandar JJCA) [2014] 7 CLJ 191 [CA]INDEKS PERKARA
HAD MASA
Tanah - Pengambilan tanah - Kegagalan membayar pampasan - Tindakan diambil selepas 30 tahun - Sama ada had masa terpakai - Sama ada kekilanan berterusan sehingga pampasan dibayar - Sama ada pengambilan tanah boleh dibatalkan - Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948, s. 2(a) - Perlembagaan Persekutuan, per. 13(2)
Ali Osman Awang Hitam & Yang Lain lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Rompin & Yang Lain
(Mariana Yahya H) [2014] 7 CLJ 229 [HC]KETERANGAN
Keterangan pengecaman - Bunuh - Saksi mata tunggal - Sama ada keterangan pengecaman saksi mata lemah dan meragukan - Sama ada sabitan cacat - Sama ada tertuduh harus dilepas dan dibebaskan
Wan Farid Wan Ramli lwn. PP
(Azahar Mohamed, Mohtarudin Baki, Lim Yee Lan HHMR) [2014] 7 CLJ 218 [CA]PROSEDUR JENAYAH
Sabitan - Bunuh - Keterangan pengecaman - Saksi mata tunggal - Sama ada mahkamah gagal menilai keterangan daripada perspektif yang betul - Sama ada wujud ketidakarahan menjurus kepada salah arahan - Sama ada menyebabkan salah laksana keadilan - Sama ada sabitan tidak boleh dipertahankan
Wan Farid Wan Ramli lwn. PP
(Azahar Mohamed, Mohtarudin Baki, Lim Yee Lan HHMR) [2014] 7 CLJ 218 [CA]UNDANG-UNDANG BURUH
Pekerjaan - Penamatan perkhidmatan - Syarikat mengalami kerugian dan terpaksa menutup operasi - Penamatan perkhidmatan pekerja-pekerja dengan membayar gaji akhir - Potongan wang pendahuluan perumahan daripada bayaran akhir - Pegawai Pendengar Pejabat Tenaga Kerja memutuskan potongan tidak sah - Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi - Prosedur yang harus diikuti - Sama ada bayaran faedah penamatan kerja termasuk dalam takrifan 'upah' - Sama ada boleh dipotong bagi maksud wang pendahuluan pinjaman rumah - Sama ada majikan boleh membuat potongan daripada bayaran faedah penamatan kerja
Perfect Channel Sdn Bhd lwn. Azmi Ahmad & Yang Lain
(Abu Bakar Katar PK) [2014] 7 CLJ 248 [HC]UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 302 - Bunuh - Pembuktian - Saksi mata tunggal - Penilaian keterangan - Sama ada keterangan saksi tunggal lemah dan meragukan - Sama ada sabitan cacat - Sama ada tertuduh harus dilepas dan dibebaskan - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 302
Wan Farid Wan Ramli lwn. PP
(Azahar Mohamed, Mohtarudin Baki, Lim Yee Lan HHMR) [2014] 7 CLJ 218 [CA]UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH
Pengambilan tanah - Kesahan pengambilan - Sama ada pampasan dibayar kepada pemilik berdaftar sebenar - Kesilapan dalam penamaan pemilik berdaftar - Sama ada Pentadbir Tanah bertanggungjawab untuk menyiasat pihak berkepentingan atas tanah - Sama ada penjelasan diberikan bagi kesilapan penamaan - Sama ada kesilapan memudaratkan kepada pemilik berdaftar sebenar
Ali Osman Awang Hitam & Yang Lain lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Rompin & Yang Lain
(Mariana Yahya H) [2014] 7 CLJ 229 [HC]Pengambilan tanah - Pampasan - Sama ada bayaran pampasan dibuktikan - Sama ada kegagalan membayar pampasan menjadikan pengambilan tanah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang
Ali Osman Awang Hitam & Yang Lain lwn. Pentadbir Tanah Rompin & Yang Lain
(Mariana Yahya H) [2014] 7 CLJ 229 [HC]ARTICLELegal Network Series Article(s)
1. MAQASID AL-SHARI'AH MADE SIMPLE* [Read excerpt]
by: MOHAMMAD HASHIM KAMALI [2014] 1 LNS(A) lxxvi2. WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD [Read excerpt]
by: LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY MR* [2014] 1 LNS(A) lxxviiLEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTSPrincipal Acts
Number Title Date coming into force Repealing ACT 763 Financial Services Act 2013 Not Yet In Force -Nil- ACT 762 Goods And Services Tax Act 2014 1 July 2014 - Parts I, II, IV, VI and XVI, ss 10, 11, 17, 18, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 50, 56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 160, 163, 183, 184 and 197, the First Schedule and Second Schedule to the Act; 1 April 2015 - Parts IX, XIII, XVII and XVIII, ss 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 70, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 98, 106, 108, 109, 110, 122, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196, the Third Schedule and Fourth Schedule to the Act [PU(B) 319/2014] -Nil- ACT 761 Finance Act 2014 See s 3 for the Income Tax Act; s 33 for the Stamp Act; s 36 for the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act; s 44 for the Real Property Gains Tax Act and s 50 for the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act -Nil- ACT 760 Fees (Department Of Museums Malaysia) (Validation) Act 2014 1 January 1991 to 11 June 2012 -Nil- ACT 759 Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 30 June 2013 [PU(B) 277/2013] - except para(s) 1 to 10 of Schedule 9 and para(s) 13 to 19 of Schedule 9 -Nil- Amending Acts
Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No ACT A1467 Anti-Money Laundering And Anti-Terrorism Financing (Amendment) Act 2014 Not Yet In Force except for section 78 comes into force on 8 August 2014 ACT 613 ACT A1466 Supplementary Supply (2014) Act 2014 25 July 2014 -Nil- ACT A1465 Private Higher Educational Institutions (Amendment) Act 2014 25 July 2014 ACT 555 ACT A1464 Price Control And Anti-Profiteering (Amendment) Act 2014 Not Yet In Force ACT 723 ACT A1463 Corrosive And Explosive Substances And Offensive Weapons (Amendment) Act 2014 2 July 2014 ACT 357 PU(A)
Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No PU(A) 235/2014 Customs (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014 13 August 2014 15 August 2014 PU(A) 162/1977 PU(A) 234/2014 Printing Presses And Publications (Control Of Undesirable Publications) (No. 8) Order 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 301 PU(A) 233/2014 Printing Presses And Publications (Control Of Undesirable Publications) (No. 7) Order 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 301 PU(A) 232/2014 Factories And Machinery (Exemption To Shell MDS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Bintulu, Sarawak) Order 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 139 PU(A) 231/2014 Optical (Amendment Of Second Schedule) Order 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 469 PU(B)
Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No PU(B) 365/2014 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 80800 Mukim Batu 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 56/1965 PU(B) 364/2014 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 80780 Mukim Batu 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 56/1965 PU(B) 363/2014 Reservation Of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 80721 Mukim Batu 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 ACT 56/1965 PU(B) 362/2014 Notification Of Values Of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 7 August 2014 7 August 2014 to 20 August 2014 ACT 235; PU(A) 275/2012 PU(B) 361/2014 Notice Of Completion Of Revision And Inspection Of Supplementary Electoral Rolls - Malacca 25 July 2014 7 August 2014 to 20 August 2014 ACT 235; PU(A) 275/2012 To view previous issues of the CLJ Bulletin, Click here
If you no longer wish to receive this email in the future, you may unsubscribe.CLJ Bulletin: Copyright © 1997 - 2014 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 03-42705421(DL) 03-42705400(GL) Fax No: 03-42705402