Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
JRI RESOURCES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATION OF ISLAMIC.... – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional questions reserve judicial power for resolution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. sac's decisions bind courts in islamic finance matters. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 20) |
| 3. binding rulings established by the shariah advisory council. (Para 12 , 47) |
| 4. legislative provisions do not infringe judicial independence. (Para 31 , 32 , 36 , 48) |
| 5. judicial power must solely reside with the judiciary. (Para 41 , 159) |
| 6. the role of the courts in applying shariah law. (Para 170 , 182 , 199) |
[1] This matter came before this court by way of a constitutional reference by the High court at Kuala Lumpur pursuant to s 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("Act 91") and art 128(2) of the Federal Constitution (" FC ").
[2] The constitutional questions reserved for determination by this court are as follows:
(1) Whether ss 56 and 57 of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 are in breach of the Federal Constitution and unconstitutional by reason of:
(a) Contravening art 74 of the Federal Constitution read together with the Ninth Schedule of the for the Shariah Advisory Council ("SAC") having been vested with the power to ascertain Islamic law;
(b) Contravening Part IX of the Federal
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 :
Back to top
