HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS (SEPANG) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
AIRASIA X BERHAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. implications of statutory adherence and judicial boundaries. (Para 49 , 60 , 67) |
| 2. summary judgment applicability. (Para 68) |
| 3. final orders and verdict. (Para 100 , 102) |
[47] It is resoundingly clear from the excerpt above that the 'dispute' referred to in s 74 refers to dispute arising between two or more providers of aviation services. Now, in the extreme contrary, the Defendant has obviously mounted the wrong dispute against the wrong party. In actuality, whatever issue or dispute the Defendant had regarding the imposition of the increased PSC rate is instead the Defendant's dispute against the Commission and not at all the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is merely enforcing what is statutorily provided. Even the Plaintiff is devoid of any authority to go against the statutory grain.
[48] If indeed the Defendant genuinely disputes the imposition of the increased PSC rate, then the Defendant should have mounted a challenge against the statutory decision laid down by the Commission and not vex the Plaintiff who is merely enforcing what is statutorily incumbent upon the Plaintiff to claim. The rate is set by the Commission and not the Plaintiff. The Defend
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.