SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 761

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS (SEPANG) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
AIRASIA X BERHAD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Shahnnon Rajan,Eric Gabriel Gomez ,Respondent Advocate: Lim Tuck Sun,Kenneth Koh,Ariel On

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)
[Emphasis Added]

[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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top