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

2018 MarsdenLR 2685

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
ELANGESHWARAN MUTHUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
ANSELL NP SDN BHD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Anthony Gomez ,Respondent Advocate: Khairun Neesha Raj Mohd

Table of Content
1. claimant's dismissal and request for document production. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5)
2. company's opposition to production based on relevance and existence. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. claims about evidence related to dismissal. (Para 6)
4. court's findings on document relevance and the burden of proof. (Para 12)

[1] This reference stems from the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company on 27 July 2015. The first mention date for the case was fixed on 25 May 2016 and then followed with several other dates for mention. On 11 August 2016, the Court fixed 12-13 July 2017 for hearing and another date for case management was fixed on 13 June 2017. When the case was ready to proceed for hearing on 12 July 2017, the counsel for the Company raised his objection on the request of the Claimant mentioned in Borang P to be produced. Primarily, as argued by the Claimant, the documents requested to be produced were closely inter-related to the Claimant's case in this Court.

[2] The documents are as follows:

(i) Monthly Financial Closure Report for the period January 2013 till December 2015;

(ii) Monthly Internal Audit Report for the period January 2013 till December 2015;

(iii) External Audit

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