The Proposed Intervener lacks legal standing to intervene in execution proceedings, as the power of attorney does not confer beneficial interest in the property.

Headnote:The judgment examines the application by the Proposed Intervener to participate in execution proceedings based on an irrevocable power of attorney and related acknowledgment of debt. The court finds no legal or beneficial interest in the property by the intervener, emphasizing the need for direct legal rights for intervention. Dismissal of the Proposed Intervener's application followed based on the lack of ownership rights under relevant property laws, aligning with established legal principles concerning powers of attorney and their limitations.

Table of Content
1. intervention proceedings require clear beneficial interest. (Para 1)

[1] On 14 March 2017 the Deputy Registrar (DR) dismissed the Proposed Intervener's application (Enclosure 22) to intervene in the execution proceedings 36-3-03/2015 (Execution Proceedings). Pursuant thereto the Proposed Intervener filed Notice of Appeal to Judge in Chambers (Enclosure 36) dated 22 March 2017 appealing against the said decision of the DR. I subsequently dismissed Enclosure 36 with costs. Thus this appeal filed by the Proposed Intervener.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

Scan Me!

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

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2017 MarsdenLR 153

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURMUNIANDY NADASAN & ORS – AppellantVersusDATO PREM KRISHNA SAHGAL & ORS; DATO JEYARAJ V RATNASWAMY (INTERVENER) – Respondent[Suit No: 22NCC-68-01/2013 & Execution No: 36-3-03/2015]

The Proposed Intervener lacks legal standing to intervene in execution proceedings, as the power of attorney does not confer beneficial interest in the property.

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUNIANDY NADASAN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
DATO PREM KRISHNA SAHGAL & ORS; DATO JEYARAJ V RATNASWAMY (INTERVENER) – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCC-68-01/2013 & Execution No: 36-3-03/2015]