FAWZIAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD vs METRAMAC CORPORATION SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 MarsdenLR 1096

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
FAWZIAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
METRAMAC CORPORATION SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Dr Cyrus Das,Benjamin Dawson ,Respondent Advocate: Muhammad Shafee Abdullah,Kaushalya Rajathurai

JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] We heard this motion on 24 October 2005 and reserved our decision on it to the following day. We did not grant the orders sought. But we granted an injunction on the usual terms restraining the respondent (whom I shall refer to as the defendant) and/or its servants or agents or howsoever otherwise from dealing with or disposing of its assets, including any monies it may receive hereafter, up to a limit of RM100 million until further order. After we had made the order, learned counsel for the defendant sought a stay of our order because he wishes to test the correctness of our decision before the Federal Court.

[2] We are here exercising our original jurisdiction under s 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA"). See, Silver Concept Sdn Bhd v. Brisdale Rasa Development Sdn Bhd, [2002] 4 MLJ 113. I am aware that in Lam Kong Co Ltd v. Thong Guan Co Pte Ltd; [2000] 1 CLJ 1; [2000] 4 MLJ 1 Dzaiddin FCJ remarked by way of obiter that: "It is trite that the Court of Appeal today no longer has any original jurisdiction". That, with respect, is too wide and is an incorrect observation. It overlooks the actual wording of s 44 which reads:

(1) In any procee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 MarsdenLR 1096

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAFAWZIAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMETRAMAC CORPORATION SDN BHD – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
FAWZIAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
METRAMAC CORPORATION SDN BHD – Respondent