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

2005 MarsdenLR 2314 ; 2005 MarsdenLR 1

GOPAL SRI RAM, ABDUL AZIZ MOHAMAD, MOHD GHAZALI YUSOFF
REKAPACIFIC BHD – Appellant
Versus
SECURITIES COMMISSION – Respondent


Advocates:
For the appellant - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (Richard Yeoh with him); M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
For the 1st respondent - Tommy Thomas; M/s Tommy Thomas
For the 2nd respondent - N Navaratnam (Brendan Siva & Selena Chow with him); M/s Kadir, Andri, Aidham & Partners
For the appellant - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (Richard Yeoh with him); M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
For the 1st respondent - Tommy Thomas; M/s Tommy Thomas
For the 2nd respondent - N Navaratnam (Brendan Siva & Selena Chow with him); M/s Kadir, Andri, Aidham & Partners
For the appellant - N Navaratnam (Brendan Siva & Selena Chow with him); M/s Kadir, Andri, Aidham & Partners
For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (Richard Yeoh with him); M/s Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low

JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

There are three appeals before us. They are civil appeal Nos. W-02-845-02 ("the first appeal"), W-04-151-02 ("the second appeal") and W-02-231-03 ("the third appeal"). The appellant in the first and second appeals is Rekapacific Berhad ("Rekapacific) while the Securities Commission and the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange are the respondents. In the third appeal, it is the Stock Exchange which is the appellant while Rekapacific is the respondent. The facts relevant to all these appeals are as follows.

Rekapacific is a public listed company. It was de-listed by the Stock Exchange for alleged breaches of listing rules. It appealed unsuccessfully to the Committee of the Stock Exchange. It also lodged a parallel appeal to the Securities Commission. But that appeal was not considered as the Commission left the matter to be dealt with by the Exchange. Rekapacific then took out an application for judicial review. Several voluminous affidavits were delivered by the parties. Then, in the course of those proceedings it applied for discovery of documents and later to interrogate the respondents and to cross-examine Md Nor Ahmad, the deponent of an affidavit delivered

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