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

1990 MarsdenLR 398

SUPREME COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SELVAMARY P SATIANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
G RETHINASAMY – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:G S Nijar,M Thayalan ,Respondent Advocate: R J Manecksha

JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop Sani CJM:

[1] Before the learned Judge of the High Court was an appeal under s 103 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA). The appellant was the complainant who had made a complaint under s 95 of the LPA against the solicitor (the respondent here) over an alleged impropriety while acting as solicitor for her in a sale and purchase agreement. The Bar Council however decided that a formal enquiry into her complaint was not necessary. The appellant then filed the originating summons pursuant to s 103(2) of the LPA.

[2]Section 103 of the LPA reads as follows:

103 Appeal to High Court

(1) A person who has made a complaint under s 95(1)and who is dissatisfied with the findings of the State Bar Committee or of the Inquiry Committee or with the determination of the Bar Council on the complaint may, within fourteen days of receiving the notification under s 98(c), appeal to a Judge of the High Court against such finding or determination or both.

(2) The appeal shall be by way of originating summons and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the facts constituting the basis of the complaint and by a copy of the complaint originally made to the Bar Council, together with a cop

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